From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 28 04:49:46 2007 Return-Path: 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 E86E216A417 for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2007 04:49:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx22.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A89B713C45D for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2007 04:49:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 16519 invoked by uid 399); 28 Jul 2007 04:49:46 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.4?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTP; 28 Jul 2007 04:49:46 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 Message-ID: <46AACAE3.2060401@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:49:39 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (Windows/20070716) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yoshihiro Ota References: <20070726011654.cec378be.ota@j.email.ne.jp> <46A866BE.1000407@u.washington.edu> <20070726233610.e536c2e2.ota@j.email.ne.jp> <46A9A56E.5080608@FreeBSD.org> <20070727215923.a5c3c2aa.ota@j.email.ne.jp> In-Reply-To: <20070727215923.a5c3c2aa.ota@j.email.ne.jp> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Call for testers for yet another ports upgrade program, ports+ 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, 28 Jul 2007 04:49:47 -0000 Hiro, I'm happy to respond to you, but first I'd like to make clear that I'm not trying to talk you out of anything. If there is a better way to manage ports, or even just a different approach, I'm all for it. I don't think portmaster is a "one size fits all" tool, and I'm not trying to make it one. Yoshihiro Ota wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:57:34 -0700 > Doug Barton wrote: > >> Yoshihiro Ota wrote: >> >>> I think portmaster is also one tries to read and do the same things >>> but with shell script. >> Not exactly the same things. Portmaster doesn't keep any external >> database, it only updates what is in /var/db/pkg. >> > > Could you tell me a bit more or point to a source if already > written on how portmaster works. The man page has a good overview, I have documented it relatively thoroughly, and I keep it up to date. You can either install the port, or do: nroff -man /usr/ports/ports-mgmt/portmaster/files/portmaster.8 | more Of course, you can always "use the source luke." :) I won't claim that it's as well documented as it probably should be, but being written in /bin/sh it's not that hard to figure out what's going on. >>> I personally didn't have good luck with portmaster and haven't >>> really used to evaluate. >> I'm sorry to hear that. If you're interested, please feel free to >> start another thread that describes your issues. > > My problem was obsolete ports. I think I need to put +IGNORE_ME > file for such ports, but I haven't spent much time on portmaster > so far yet. It's /var/db/pkg/*/+IGNOREME, but yeah, that'd work for something you don't want portmaster (or portupgrade for that matter) to mess with. >>> However, "portmaster -a -n" wasn't not fast, neither. I should probably point out that this is the worst case scenario, since by definition portmaster -a has to evaluate each installed port. The vast majority of the time spent doing that though is in 'make -V PORTVERSION'. The benefit comes when you actually start building stuff and because all the information about the up to date ports is cached, it won't have to be reevaluated. >> Well, I'm not sure when you last tried it, but I've implemented a lot >> of caching features in the past year, so nowadays almost all of the >> time spent running portmaster is actually spent in the ports tree, >> most of that in building the port. > > > I did about a half year ago and a couple days ago. > I don't think I am familar enough to evaluate portsmaster. Fair enough. I think it's useful and healthy to discuss where both the various tools, and the infrastructure can be improved. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection