On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:45:27AM -0700, Jeremy Evans wrote: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 12:31 AM, Marc Espie <es...@nerim.net> wrote: > > > Number of ports is important as well, unfortunately. There is a huge chunk > > of time spent waiting for dependencies to install and for the disk to > > unpack/repack stuff. > > > > Death of a thousand cuts. > > > > The simple solution here is to just build the interpreter for ruby 1.8 (for > the ports that require it), and not build ruby 1.8 libraries by default. > We currently build about 90 ruby 1.8 libraries.
Looks like a fair middle ground - any solution to deduplicate stuff probably not used by anyone in packages snapshots is interesting imo. Plus, what you propose still allows users that want 1.8 libs to build them locally, so i'm fine with that. > This could be extended to ruby 1.9 as well if you want. Thoughts? How far is 1.9 from EOL upstream ? How "used" is 1.9 compared to 2.0 and 2.1, within openbsd users ? I suppose besides specific cases, everyone uses the default version set in ruby.port.mk.... Landry
