Large port updates
adamw at FreeBSD.org
Tue Dec 7 14:31:07 PST 2004
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 05:52:15PM +0000, mark at markdnet.demon.co.uk wrote:
>It seems to me that its a product of gnome being so many ports. Why
>not just have a few, like KDE (although it appears KDE is going the
>way of gnome - if this results in portupgrade not working there
>either, its insanity).
* With KDE, you get one big update every release. With GNOME, you
can get new features, fixes, and improvements as soon as they become
available. It's just a different design model. Each has its merits;
each has its faults.
* With KDE, you have one kdelibs port that takes about 80 minutes to
build. With GNOME, you have about 20 ports that take about 4 minutes
each to build. 6 of one, half dozen of another. That's purely
metaphorical, of course: using ccache, I can build all GNOME meta-
ports in about 6.5 hours; building the KDE meta-port takes about 9.
* portupgrade(1) works perfectly if you run it regularly. If you
introduce inconsistencies, portupgrade will fail no matter how you run
it, or even if you build the updates from the command-line.
* If you don't like the deployment structure of GNOME, talk to GNOME,
not FreeBSD. You wouldn't complain to your TV manufacturer if you
didn't like a movie you rented.
adamw at magnesium.net || adamw at FreeBSD.org
adamw at vectors.cx || adamw at gnome.org
More information about the freebsd-ports