On 26 June 2012 16:20, RW <rwmailli...@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 _______________________________________________ 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"