Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 03:07:59 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Henk van Oers <henk@signature.nl> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portmaster -r vs. ports/UPDATING Message-ID: <4E561EFF.9090401@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1108251144580.20773@dee.signature.nl> References: <20110824120044.9CFDB1065734@hub.freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1108251144580.20773@dee.signature.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 08/25/2011 02:55, Henk van Oers wrote: > > [ multi -r arguments ] > > In article <xs4all.4E560F4B.40609@freebsd.org>, > Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> writes: >> On 08/25/2011 01:58, Matthias Andree wrote: > [...] > >>> Perhaps this behaviour could change in a future version of portmaster, >> >> Patches are always welcome. > > Can I send some money? Always. :) http://dougbarton.us/portmaster-proposal.html > I also want to run portmaster -r without "argument list too long". That's one of the reasons I'm hesitant about this. Portmaster makes extensive use of environment variables to cache state about things, which is one reason it's so fast. However, this can lead to problems when the environment variables take up so much memory that command lines for the various system tools called by portmaster take up more space than is available. Over the last couple of years I've been working on reducing this, but it's difficult to find the happy medium. Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E561EFF.9090401>