Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:11:21 +0000 From: Florent Thoumie <flz@FreeBSD.org> To: youshi10@u.washington.edu Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portupgrade O(n^m)? Message-ID: <45D4BE69.1020607@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0702151020440.16360@hymn07.u.washington.edu> References: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0702151020440.16360@hymn07.u.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] 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 [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFF1L5uMxEkbVFH3PQRChK6AJ4rMUIw5v5ShoEpUC6X0x2tl5TXGQCeKyB5 iWcbt7410oDMd+Tl7K7WSyA= =TAAN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45D4BE69.1020607>