Port system "problems"

[Chris Rees]

On 26 June 2012 16:20, RW <rwmaillists at googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:31:01 +0100
> Matthew Seaman wrote:
>
>
>> What's different in the new scheme?
>>
>>   1 options dialogue
>>   2 fetch & verify distfiles
>>   3 extract
>>   4 patch
>>   5 configure
>>   6 compile
>>   7 install to staging directory tree ***
>>   8 create packages, sub-packages ***
>>   9 install packages and sub-packages as selected ***
>
>
>
>> Whether the extra/different work done in stages 7, 8 and 9 will negate
>> the savings from only doing stages 1-6 once remains to be seen.  My
>> prediction is that mostly you'ld come out ahead, but whether you do,
>> and by how much will vary significantly between individual ports.
>
> It's not really worth looking at individual ports. It's the average on
> major updates that really matters. In my experience most of he time
> is spent building, and I just don't think that there all that much to be
> gained in the compile stage.
>
> The staging area is appealing in its own right. I'm less keen
> on sub-packages which are going to break update tools. I think it's
> very likely  that only portmaster would survive.

Nah, the new maintainer for portupgrade is heavily involved in
development, and is actually now a pkgng developer.

Also, with pkgng the emphasis is more on binary upgrades.  We really
shouldn't still be compiling from source for everything in this day
and age-- we're one of only two major projects that still do this as
the main upgrade solution.

Chris