Limitations of Ports System

[Aryeh M. Friedman]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Garrett Cooper wrote:
>
> On Dec 13, 2007, at 10:17 AM, Warren Block wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Steven Kreuzer wrote:
>>
>>> This thread was called "results of ports re-engineering survey"
>>>  but I figured I would start a new thread.
>>
>> Rightly so.
>>
>>> On Dec 12, 2007, at 6:45 AM, Ade Lovett wrote:
>>>> We *know* it can be done better.  We *know* the scaling
>>>> limits of the current system, and most of us are completely
>>>> amazed it even still works. If y'all want to make a
>>>> difference, concepts and ideas we have plenty of. Code talks.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Out of curiosity, are any of these shortcomings documented
>>> anywhere? I have been using ports on my home machine for a long
>>>  time and I've never had any problems with it. I assume the
>>> issues come into play when you work with multiple systems you
>>> are trying to keep in sync, etc.
>>>
>>> I would be interested in reading about some of the limitations
>>> people have run into when using ports.
>>
>> Notable with the new modular Xorg is the speed of changes
>> (install/deinstall/clean) when there are a lot of ports
>> installed. Before modular xorg, 400 ports installed was a lot.
>> 700 now is not surprising.
>>
>> Some profiling looking for areas which could benefit from speed
>> optimization would be useful.  That may have already been done
>> but not publicized.
>>
>> -Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota USA
>
>
> My hunch is that part of the problem lies in the fact
> (unfortunately) that everything's done via Makefiles and that
> there's a lot of redundancy to some extent with the operations
> performed by pkg_install and friends (at least from reading and
> writing the /var/db/pkg* and /usr/ports/INDEX* files are
> concerned), in particular when dealing with non-slave / -master
> instances, and how make is invoking pkg_install(1). I don't have
> hard evidence to support that point though, and until that point is
> reached my comment is merely speculation.


That is why I plan to use xorg as the test case for the new system....
namely if it builds xorg in the most efficent way possible then it
will be considered good enough for release
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHYY92zIOMjAek4JIRAjBoAJ4hi8xhHmreBMKHu7FMnDI+HkYDMACfQfxS
wVcLDfmxx33RniSkKLsysYo=
=ZLLP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----