Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:35:10 -0800 (PST) From: youshi10@u.washington.edu To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portupgrade O(n^m)? Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0702151635100.1923@hymn09.u.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <45D4BE69.1020607@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, Florent Thoumie wrote: > youshi10@u.washington.edu wrote: >> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, Coleman Kane wrote: >> >>> On 2/15/07, Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> Quoting Olivier Warin <daffy@xview.net> (from Wed, 14 Feb 2007 >>>> 19:54:09 +0100): >>>> >>>>> This issue is not only related to portupgrade, pkg_add a new port >>>> takes >>>>> far too long now... and make index each time I upgrade my ports is >>>>> awfull too. >>>> >>>> Regarding "make index": try "make fetchindex" right after the cvsup. >>>> IT may not be up to the point with the cvsupped stuff, but not far off. >>>> >>>> Bye, >>>> Alexander. >>> >>> >>> >>> I don't think we who use the modular X.org tree can do this since a >>> number >>> of the ports won't be properly registered in the file (or am I off-base >>> here?). >>> -- >>> Coleman >> >> Heh, that is a serious problem considering that modular Xorg would >> probably at max add about 100 ~ 150~some packages to the portage tree, >> depending on how things are done. > > Yeah, I propose we just stay with X.org 6.9.0. > > PS: This is "ports tree" really, not "portage tree". > > -- > Florent Thoumie > flz@FreeBSD.org > FreeBSD Committer Yes, you're right (about the PS). That was a silly misphrase on my part.. Just curious though: why stay with Xorg 6.9? -Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.43.0702151635100.1923>