On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 11:55 AM, René J.V. wrote: > Hi, > > Good idea(s) ... but not easy indeed. > > Isn't there a script that automates the process?
There might be one, but that doesn't really help us to make the package(s). It is helpful for the creator of the Portfile to know which steps are needed, but one cannot just use a script out-of-the-box. > I don't think btw that current libgcc portfile implementations exploit the > code-sharing efficiency thing, something I wondered about myself. I guess > that the gcc code tree isn't large enough to be an issue even on current > SSDs, and that unpacking it is only an issue on HDDs so slow that you'd be > handicapped by them anyway? (Talking about libgcc compile time ... I believe it must take over 24 hours to compile libgcc on iBook G4 and then it breaks anyway. Then Jeremy updates files, so another day ... and so on. I've been trying to install a working compiler on Leopard since Sunday; no success yet.) It's not about the time needed to extract files. But I think it took me somewhere between one and two hours to cross-compile gcc (Intel Core 2 Duo from 2009). And then another two hours just to perform exactly the same compilations again in steps (e) and (g) which could have been avoided entirely. (Please don't take the numbers about the time it took for granted. All I remember is that it was looooooooooong and that I could have avoided much of the compilation time if I could repeat the compilation from the same tree.) Sure, take the 6-core Mac Pro with an SSD an nobody will care about the optimisation any longer, but that's still not the excuse for making things inefficient ;) Then again it's still better to have a non-optimized installation that gets you the result than not having the software available in the first place. Mojca _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
