From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 6 08:04:12 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C1161065670; Sat, 6 Oct 2012 08:04:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bapt@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B2568FC08; Sat, 6 Oct 2012 08:04:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q9684Ctn001777; Sat, 6 Oct 2012 08:04:12 GMT (envelope-from bapt@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from bapt@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id q9684Cn9001776; Sat, 6 Oct 2012 08:04:12 GMT (envelope-from bapt@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: bapt set sender to bapt@FreeBSD.org using -f Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2012 10:04:09 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin To: Doug Barton Message-ID: <20121006080409.GA30675@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> References: <20121005140534.GB61272@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <506F9275.3090106@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="M9NhX3UHpAaciwkO" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <506F9275.3090106@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [CHANGE PROPOSAL] Moving WWW from pkg-descr to Makefile X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2012 08:04:12 -0000 --M9NhX3UHpAaciwkO Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 07:07:49PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > On 10/05/2012 07:05 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > Hi, > >=20 > > I want to propose and make the actual move of the WWW information from = the > > pkg-descr to the Makefile itself via a WWW variable. > >=20 > > doing this will have multiple benefits: > > * consistency all metadata bug this one are in Makefile >=20 > ... except for the distinfo data. =2E.. >=20 > > * speedup make describe avoiding using grep to get the informations (m= ake > > describe itself does not need speed but make index heavily use it an= d this > > will definitly benefit from speed up) >=20 > Agreed, but there are other ways to speed up 'make describe,' and tools > like ports-mgmt/p5-FreeBSD-Portindex are a much better solution where > "create an up to date INDEX quickly" is a real need. This sounds like: we have a problem, instead of fixing it let's workaround = it >=20 > > * Third party tool will be able to probe the information more easily. >=20 > Portmaster doesn't parse WWW for anything, but I have suggested to > others in the past that 'while read' in sh is a faster method of finding > the WWW than grep. In fact, 'make describe' uses this method now, not > grep. I vaguely recall that this was done at my suggestion, but I'm too > lazy to trace the commit path to confirm it. :) 'make www-site' (which > already exists in case there is a 3rd party tool that needs it) uses a > different method utilizing awk. I haven't tested which one is faster. >=20 > I'm also concerned about the proliferation of things being jammed into > the ports Makefile (and coincidentally, bpm). I've noticed that just > about every operation that portmaster does using 'make -V' has gotten > noticeably slower over the last 6-8 months, and the trend seems to be > getting worse instead of better. make www-site already exists and will be made faster, and nothing else will= be added, but things will be removed... I don't see the proliferation here but rather a cleanup. Concerning the bpm, I have removed more old things and useless tests from it that I have added! and if people were actively working on switching there p= orts to the new option framework then the fallback code could be removed and this will speed up lots of operations. >=20 > > Do anyone have any concern about this? >=20 > For all these reasons, and for the already-stated reason that it > severely lowers the value of 'cat pkg-descr' (which I do quite often, > and I'm sure other users do as well) I think this is a bad idea. >=20 > Doug >=20 --M9NhX3UHpAaciwkO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlBv5fkACgkQ8kTtMUmk6Ex66ACgu05AcwOrEXl3zd/tU332es8h b3EAn3SPqYdytFJwUbhH8Wb1HtjcsMET =LEZM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --M9NhX3UHpAaciwkO--