INDEX-5 is deleted then reconstructed by "make index"
mezz7 at cox.net
Tue Oct 28 21:59:58 PST 2003
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:27:15 -0800 (PST), Dorin H. <dhogea at yahoo.com>
>> I never do the 'make index' and never use
>> portsdb/portversion, because the
>> pkg_version works much better.
> So as long as you have the port's Makefile everything
> should be fine. But that means that you browse the
> port files each time you want a new report about
> them(while the portversion command use the .db file).
> Isn't it slower? Maybe I didn't got it right.
I don't think so, because you still have to wait for the databases to be
rebuilt, before you can use portversion. The pkg_version is more quickly
that is taking around 30 to 50 seconds on my AthlonXP 2000+ machine with
over 300 packages installed. I only use pkg_version once at the
_everytime_ when I CVSup'ed, so the database should be faster if you use
pkgversion more than once in _a_ CVSup'ed. ;-)
My real thought of this.. I think the pkgversion is useless, when you
_have_ to rebuild the database at the _everytime_ when you CVSup'ed. It
takes the more time. Let's take a look at the time:
# time make index
Generating INDEX-5 - please wait..
501.639u 291.286s 15:04.76 87.6% 400+619k 36493+66io 188pf+0w
# time portsdb -u
[Updating the portsdb <format:bdb1_btree> in /usr/ports ... - 9564 port
10.548u 2.430s 0:16.81 77.1% 8+12244k 76+69io 5pf+0w
# time portversion -l "<"
3.127u 0.653s 0:08.02 47.0% 22+9776k 1003+0io 0pf+0w
# time pkg_version -l \<
29.930u 11.442s 0:49.49 83.5% 327+540k 1093+0io 63pf+0w
Result: The 'my' way is a winner, easier and quick. :-) But, I don't know
how it will make the difference if I have the 9,000 packages installed.
Like I said, I only find 'make index' is useful for the search.
> Also, do you prefer building locally or just using
> prepackaged stuff?
I only use pkg_add for cvsup-without-gui and the rest are built by the
ports. The prepackages are slower unless you have the cheap machine then
it's no big deal. It is more noticeable on OpenOffice, MPlayer, Xine,
Apache and etc, those are much more faster if they are built by ports.
There are many reasons why I prefer to use ports over pkg_add, because it
is more flexible, easier to choice what options to build, use CPUTYPE
(for MMX(2), SSE(2) and etc) and more reasons. There have few good threads
about it over at bsdforums.org wrote by phoenix, he's skill at explain
> I found out that the two doesn't
> mix so well. I've installed some part of kde by
> portupgrade and some by pkg_add, then I got errors
> while building the metaport "kde". I solved it by
> pkg_delete the previous pkg_added ports and make
> install them.
Because, the ports are newer than pkg_add as always.
> Is it so in general or it is just a temporary issue
> that will be solved later (I was talking about
Well, if the build failed then I do sometime just grab the prepackaged for
temporary if I need it now.
The pkg_add VS ports are part of personal perfer too, thought.
> Thank you for your inputs and your time,
bsdforums.org 's moderator, mezz.
More information about the freebsd-ports