Hi, ----- On 1 Jan, 2015, at 18:42, René J.V. Bertin [email protected] 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 generate the necessary configuration files from Makefiles, ninja can only ever be used by ports that use a configure step that supports ninja. 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 would add another dependency, and unless I see some numbers and measurements I'm outright going to question that it is considerably faster (especially not orders of magnitude faster) than make when build times are largely dominated by the compile times itself, rather than the execution time of the build tool. > Still, any performance gain could be of interest for larger ports, or even > huge > ones such as calligra I'm currently trying out ... Please do some measurements. As I said, I doubt there will be considerable improvement when building from scratch where the build time is dominated by the components' compile times. > How would one set things up for this? Modify the CMake PortGroup to use ninja. -- Clemens Lang _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
