portupgrade O(n^m)?

[Olivier Warin]

daffy at katia:~ %> pkg_info | wc -l                                      
-[19:49]-
      917

Really portupgrade becomes clearly not so usable for me after I  
switch to Xorg 7.2RC which install 300 more packages, my workstation  
is a xSeries 226 with a Xeon 2,8Ghz 1Go DDR2. So I can imagine what  
it does on a laptop...

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.

"Someone has to do something" (tm)

Regards,

Le 14 févr. 07 à 19:36, Coleman Kane a écrit :

> On 2/14/07, John Nielsen <lists at jnielsen.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday 14 February 2007 12:41, David Gilbert wrote:
>> > I have 734 ports installed on my laptop right now.  I'm pretty  
>> sure,
>> > at times, I've had over 1000 ports on my laptop.
>> >
>> > On machine with moderate numbers of ports (most servers seem to  
>> have
>> > 50 to 200 ports), portupgrade takes a moderate amount of time to  
>> start
>> > work.  On machines like my laptop, portupgrade seems to take  
>> much more
>> > time to run.  I assume it's solving the dependency graph before it
>> > decides what to upgrade first, but is this truly a O(n^2)  
>> problem?  It
>> > seems like the implemented algorithm is O(n^2).
>>
>> Just a "me too". I noticed a huge increase in time for portupgrade  
>> when I
>> started using the modular Xorg ports tree and upgraded to X.org  
>> 7.2RC. The
>> number of installed ports on my machine went from just over 300 to  
>> well
>> over
>> 600 as a result of the upgrade. Specifying small numbers of ports  
>> (without
>> globbing) to portupgrade doesn't seem to take much more time,
>> but "portupgrade -a" or anything similar takes forever now. If  
>> there is an
>> optimization to be made there it would be good to do it before  
>> modular
>> xorg
>> hits the official tree.
>>
>> JN
>
>
> I've also had this problem. I have found that if I perform a  
> "portsdb -U &&
> pkgdb -F" every time following a cvsup that portupgrade doesn't try  
> to go
> through the full ports indexing steps again.
>
> It is still slow, and any improvement that can be made should be.  
> It is
> already a significant enough pain that most ports build in a  
> shorter amount
> of time than it takes portupgrade to update its database.
>
> --
> Coleman Kane
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-hackers at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers- 
> unsubscribe at freebsd.org"

--
Olivier Warin