reducing the size of the ports tree
jeffreybouquet at yahoo.com
Sat Nov 1 10:32:18 UTC 2014
Not initially welcoming this new effort...
explanation and other PKG problems taking precedence...
I've a few scripts which use the smaller files, and have used them
extensively in pipes. Syntax within the Makefile would make those
counterintuitive. I would wonder also if it would break port
infrastructure like the Mk and Tools and "make search" and
portsearch (etc -- ports ) ... essentially breaking more things than
would be solved. Indeed, I've many ideas for MORE small
files for people crafting shell scripts that would be of more use
down the road, and incorporated someday into additional port tools,
portmasters, portupgrades, etc...
So as far as this particular suggestion, maybe if someone wants it
bad enough one should build a prototype and test locally several
years with many ports and upgrades to determine what it breaks... and
how to write new tools.
But I conjecture that effort would be better spent with PR backlogs,
fixing pkg2ng (which fails here on one machine ) etc... and
making pkg more robust... (complete recovery if the database is
hosed, with a something local_sqlite_hosed_reuild_sh.sh etc etc
And the documentation. Many many more examples of everyday usage
over the course of a year and UPDATING scenarious would be
and also streamlining pkg so it works better on low power machines with
many ports installed. Including less segfaults...
As an aside, I am now on a machine which never had the problem before,
after a failed pkg2ng conversion,
A... pkg install -f nettle
wants to install csound! what file is telling it that? The database ???
... and seven others I had just deinstalled
B... make install ( proceeds with "Child process terminated abnomally...
segmentation fault) before the install. Not known if anything was running
beforehand. Not problems with the install. But it keeps occuring...
What process? Something in the background wanting that nettle >>
csound dependency? Pkg working before the make command? Part
of the make command infrastructure now more buggy?
Thankfully that machine is not the primary one here, and all the programs
installed still work on it as far as I know. But its registration data is
not exact and pkg-devel as installed on it could be debugged more... as
well as pkg2ng retested to work on v9 more precisely... It failed three times
to convert that machine. (not installed unless desinstalling direct from
the port, so could not upgrade.. or pkg info the port)
More information about the freebsd-ports