Matthew Seaman <m.sea...@infracaninophile.co.uk>:
On 26/06/2012 10:31, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
On 06/26/12 11:03, Matthew Seaman wrote:
Yes, it will multiply the number of ports. By three is about right,
given that most ports will only have port-docs and port-examples
sub-ports. However, first of all, you are assuming that the effort
required to install each of those sub-ports is the same as it is to
install a single port now. That is simply not the case.
Not exactly.
I still didn't get the details, so I might speak nonsense, however...
The "effort" will be 3x processing time for portupgrade (or whatever) to
update the package database 3 times as much as before.
I remember the big X.org split up: going from a few ports to tens of
them slowed down an installation/upgrade process by an order of
magnitude (or even more).
The X.org split up is an extreme case -- it went from three or four
ports to several hundred ports as I recall. Yes, that made a big
difference, because they were all individual ports and all of the
processing steps required to install a port had to be repeated for each
of them.
Sub-ports should be much more efficient, as there's a lot of the work
involved in installing which is a one-time thing when installing port
plus some collection of sub-ports.
How does that look like in detail? Are there any concepts on about
how it is supposed to work, what the implications are, and so forth?
Cheers
Marcus
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
