> On Oct 23, 2014, at 3:18 AM, Clemens Lang wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> - On 23 Oct, 2014, at 08:55, René J.V. Bertin rjvber...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> In at least some cases, the Yosemite installer wraps HFS+ volumes up into a
>>> Core
>>> Storage Logical Volume Group, and they become Core Storage
Hey,
- On 23 Oct, 2014, at 08:55, René J.V. Bertin rjvber...@gmail.com wrote:
>> In at least some cases, the Yosemite installer wraps HFS+ volumes up into a
>> Core
>> Storage Logical Volume Group, and they become Core Storage Logical Volumes.
>>
>> http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/10/os-x-
> In at least some cases, the Yosemite installer wraps HFS+ volumes up into a
> Core Storage Logical Volume Group, and they become Core Storage Logical
> Volumes.
>
> http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/10/os-x-10-10/2/#diskutil-list
that's the part I was wondering about ... and in what unexpected
On Oct 22, 2014, at 6:42 PM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> On Wednesday October 22 2014 18:00:29 Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
>
>> For instance, the boot volume is converted to a Core Storage logical volume
>> on upgrade.
>
> I know it's off-topic, but what on earth does that mean?
In an oversimpl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_volume_management
On Oct 22, 2014, at 6:42 PM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>> For instance, the boot volume is converted to a Core Storage logical volume
>> on upgrade.
>
> I know it's off-topic, but what on earth does that mean?
__
On Wednesday October 22 2014 18:00:29 Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
> For instance, the boot volume is converted to a Core Storage logical volume
> on upgrade.
I know it's off-topic, but what on earth does that mean?
R
___
macports-users mailing list
macp
On Oct 22, 2014, at 3:06 PM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> On Wednesday October 22 2014 15:51:38 Jeremy Lavergne wrote:
>
>> On Oct 22, 2014, at 3:47 PM, Arno Hautala wrote:
>>
>>> I'm pretty sure that the scan only checks newly installed files.
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>> Only "new" (yet-to-be-scanned)
On Oct 22, 2014, at 5:53 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 5:46 PM, William H. Magill wrote:
>> 1- This release of OSX TIGHTLY integrates local I/O with iCloud (i.e.
>> network) I/O. This implies that there was probably some significant work
>> done in the Kernel Level I/O
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 5:46 PM, William H. Magill wrote:
> 1- This release of OSX TIGHTLY integrates local I/O with iCloud (i.e.
> network) I/O. This implies that there was probably some significant work
> done in the Kernel Level I/O routines.
I am under the impression that this integration i
> On Oct 22, 2014, at 4:24 PM, James Berry wrote:
>> On Oct 22, 2014, at 1:06 PM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>> On Wednesday October 22 2014 15:51:38 Jeremy Lavergne wrote:
>>> On Oct 22, 2014, at 3:47 PM, Arno Hautala wrote:
I'm pretty sure that the scan only checks newly installed files.
>>>
On Oct 22, 2014, at 3:47 PM, Arno Hautala wrote:
> You could disable the scan with --no-rev-upgrade and run the command on its
> own (port rev-upgrade) once you're done installing ports; continuing your
> real work in another window.
You could also set "revupgrade_autorun" to "no" in your macp
On Wednesday October 22 2014 16:08:16 Jeremy Lavergne wrote:
> Just because something installed doesn't mean it actually built correctly...
I'd put it this way: just because something built and installed doesn't mean
that it installed correctly (thinking of the recent re-discussion about
case-s
> On Oct 22, 2014, at 1:06 PM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>
> On Wednesday October 22 2014 15:51:38 Jeremy Lavergne wrote:
>
>> On Oct 22, 2014, at 3:47 PM, Arno Hautala wrote:
>>
>>> I'm pretty sure that the scan only checks newly installed files.
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>> Only "new" (yet-to-be-sca
On Oct 22, 2014, at 4:06 PM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> What's the point in scanning newly installed files? I thought the whole idea
> was to scan already installed files for ABI issues due to the newly installed
> (dylib) files?
>
> Or are we talking about the (other?) scan that bugs you after
On Wednesday October 22 2014 15:51:38 Jeremy Lavergne wrote:
> On Oct 22, 2014, at 3:47 PM, Arno Hautala wrote:
>
> > I'm pretty sure that the scan only checks newly installed files.
>
> Correct.
>
> Only "new" (yet-to-be-scanned) files get added, then only the applicable
> files are checked d
On Oct 22, 2014, at 3:47 PM, Arno Hautala wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that the scan only checks newly installed files.
Correct.
Only "new" (yet-to-be-scanned) files get added, then only the applicable files
are checked during rev-upgrade.
___
macports-
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 3:34 PM, René J.V. wrote:
>
> Also, I think it's a bit (much) overkill to scan all binaries when installing
> a new or upgrading an existing port. In principle MacPorts knows which ports
> depend on which other ports, and it knows what files a port contains. So it
> shou
On Wednesday October 22 2014 11:01:14 Jeremy Lavergne wrote:
> Perhaps we can better judge the time spent scanning binaries if we had a
> final count indicating how many were scanned.
>
> I suspect that sometimes, such as when a build fails, all the successfully
> installed dependents have not b
Perhaps we can better judge the time spent scanning binaries if we had a final
count indicating how many were scanned.
I suspect that sometimes, such as when a build fails, all the successfully
installed dependents have not been scanned. Only once a successful build occurs
do all "new" binaries
At 3:50 PM -0700 10/20/14, James Berry wrote:
> On Oct 20, 2014, at 3:27 AM, Clemens Lang wrote:
> - On 20 Oct, 2014, at 08:18, Lawrence
Velázquez lar...@macports.org wrote:
On Oct 20, 2014, at 1:22 AM, Leo Singer wrote:
I found that the "Updating database of binaries" step of ins
> On Oct 20, 2014, at 3:50 PM, James Berry wrote:
>
>
>> On Oct 20, 2014, at 3:27 AM, Clemens Lang wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> - On 20 Oct, 2014, at 08:18, Lawrence Velázquez lar...@macports.org
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 20, 2014, at 1:22 AM, Leo Singer wrote:
>>>
I found that the "Upd
> On Oct 20, 2014, at 3:27 AM, Clemens Lang wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> - On 20 Oct, 2014, at 08:18, Lawrence Velázquez lar...@macports.org wrote:
>
>> On Oct 20, 2014, at 1:22 AM, Leo Singer wrote:
>>
>>> I found that the "Updating database of binaries" step of installing a port
>>> became very
Just to add, I am also seeing this.
Might be wrong but don’t recall seeing quite this slow under OSX10.9 (now
running 10.10)….
> On 20 Oct 2014, at 11:27am, Clemens Lang wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> - On 20 Oct, 2014, at 08:18, Lawrence Velázquez lar...@macports.org wrote:
>
>> On Oct 20, 2014, a
Hi,
- On 20 Oct, 2014, at 08:18, Lawrence Velázquez lar...@macports.org wrote:
> On Oct 20, 2014, at 1:22 AM, Leo Singer wrote:
>
>> I found that the "Updating database of binaries" step of installing a port
>> became very slow after I upgraded to Yosemite (i.e., takes many minutes on an
>>
On Oct 20, 2014, at 1:22 AM, Leo Singer wrote:
> I found that the "Updating database of binaries" step of installing a port
> became very slow after I upgraded to Yosemite (i.e., takes many minutes on an
> SSD). I am just starting to install my ports again after uninstalling all of
> them, so
Hi,
- On 20 Oct, 2014, at 07:22, Leo Singer aron...@macports.org wrote:
> I found that the "Updating database of binaries" step of installing a port
> became very slow after I upgraded to Yosemite (i.e., takes many minutes on an
> SSD). I am just starting to install my ports again after unins
Hi,
I found that the "Updating database of binaries" step of installing a port
became very slow after I upgraded to Yosemite (i.e., takes many minutes on an
SSD). I am just starting to install my ports again after uninstalling all of
them, so if this operation scales with the number of ports it
27 matches
Mail list logo
