On 2015-01-01 23:16, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> On Thursday January 01 2015 22:38:32 Clemens Lang wrote:
>> The only configuration system (of relevant size and adoption) that
>> falls into this category is CMake. We could use ninja instead of
>> make for all CMake ports, but
>
> That's what I had i
On Friday January 02 2015 09:53:32 Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> >>> How would one set things up for this?
> >>
> >>Modify the CMake PortGroup to use ninja.
> >
> > Basically by adding "-G ninja" to the configure.args, and then modify the
> > variables defining the make application and arguments? I'd d
Hi,
> On 1 Jan 2015, at 10:16 pm, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>
> On Thursday January 01 2015 22:38:32 Clemens Lang wrote:
>
> Hi
>
>> The only configuration system (of relevant size and adoption) that falls
>> into this
>> category is CMake. We could use ninja instead of make for all CMake ports
Hi,
- On 1 Jan, 2015, at 18:42, René J.V. Bertin rjvber...@gmail.com wrote:
> I wonder, has anyone tried to use ninja instead of make for building ports? I
> keep hearing it's orders of magnitudes faster, though that might be true
> mostly
> for incremental builds.
Unless you have a way to
Hello
and best for 2015!
I wonder, has anyone tried to use ninja instead of make for building ports? I
keep hearing it's orders of magnitudes faster, though that might be true mostly
for incremental builds.
Still, any performance gain could be of interest for larger ports, or even huge
ones su
