From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 16 00:35:13 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7143E16A406 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2007 00:35:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from youshi10@u.washington.edu) Received: from mxout1.cac.washington.edu (mxout1.cac.washington.edu [140.142.32.134]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55D2513C467 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2007 00:35:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from youshi10@u.washington.edu) Received: from hymn09.u.washington.edu (hymn09.u.washington.edu [140.142.12.183]) by mxout1.cac.washington.edu (8.13.7+UW06.06/8.13.7+UW06.09) with ESMTP id l1G0ZAlV027305 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:35:11 -0800 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hymn09.u.washington.edu (8.13.7+UW06.06/8.13.7+UW06.09) with ESMTP id l1G0ZAQ8000464 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:35:10 -0800 X-Auth-Received: from [192.55.52.4] by hymn09.u.washington.edu via HTTP; Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:35:10 PST Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:35:10 -0800 (PST) From: youshi10@u.washington.edu To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <45D4BE69.1020607@FreeBSD.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-PMX-Version: 5.3.0.289146, Antispam-Engine: 2.5.0.283055, Antispam-Data: 2007.2.15.161933 X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIII, Probability=7%, Report='NO_REAL_NAME 0, __CT 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0' Subject: Re: portupgrade O(n^m)? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 00:35:13 -0000 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 wrote: >>>> >>>> Quoting Olivier Warin (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