From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jun 26 18:40:45 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 388BF106566B
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:40:45 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from mva@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from smtprelay01.ispgateway.de (smtprelay01.ispgateway.de
	[80.67.31.35]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E60D78FC1E
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:40:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [89.182.27.31] (helo=localhost)
	by smtprelay01.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.68) (envelope-from <mva@FreeBSD.org>)
	id 1Sjagn-0004ci-Ac; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 20:40:37 +0200
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 20:42:54 +0200
From: Marcus von Appen <mva@FreeBSD.org>
To: Mark Felder <feld@feld.me>
Message-ID: <20120626184253.GA2540@medusa.sysfault.org>
References: <4FE8E4A4.9070507@gmail.com>
	<20120626065732.GH41054@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
	<20120626092645.Horde.HytQbVNNcXdP6WQ1aMtjoMA@webmail.df.eu>
	<4FE96BA0.6040005@infracaninophile.co.uk>
	<4FE97008.2060501@netfence.it>
	<4FE97AE1.9080109@infracaninophile.co.uk>
	<4FE9817C.7020905@netfence.it> <op.wgilfxbv34t2sn@tech304>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="pWyiEgJYm5f9v55/"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <op.wgilfxbv34t2sn@tech304>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Df-Sender: MzAzMjU2
Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Port system "problems"
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Marcus von Appen <mva@FreeBSD.org>
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:40:45 -0000


--pWyiEgJYm5f9v55/
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On, Tue Jun 26, 2012, Mark Felder wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 04:31:40 -0500, Andrea Venturoli <ml@netfence.it>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > The "effort" will be 3x processing time for portupgrade (or whatever) to
> > update the package database 3 times as much as before.
>
> pkgng uses sqlite. Please provide proof that it is as slow or slower than
> our current package database is.

If I am trying to convince a customer of some solution X, I usually do
not tell him to provide proof that the offered solution is worse than
the current one when negotiating. Instead I try to convince him that the
offered solution is better, more robust, future-proof, easier to
maintain and saves tons of money.

Please do not validate a system as good, just because noone yet provided
some figures that outline that the existing system is in fact worse.

That said, I might assume that the sqlite solution is faster, but noone
can see that yet.

Cheers
Marcus

--pWyiEgJYm5f9v55/
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAk/qAq0ACgkQi68/ErJnpkcfcgCfQM1/Z/yNgnMq8TKyUvre5rgR
eFAAn0kzk7rgGVxFc+lsrV953NGQgcq5
=Ls6a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--pWyiEgJYm5f9v55/--