> On Sep 26, 2016, at 3:07 AM, René J.V. Bertin <rjvber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I know that more and more people (esp developers?) are using SSDs and that
> for them fragmentation starts hitting only when it's the free space that's
> really severely fragmented. I have no experience in that area, and do not
> currently have the budget to obtain that experience.
>
> Either way, it seems to me that it might be an interesting idea to make it
> possible (easier) to put the build directory on a separate volume
> (interesting for anyone building a lot from source). This removes a big
> source of free space fragmentation (on disks where fragmentation is an
> issue), but in general helps keep ${prefix} cleaner. It can also help keeping
> log files more compact and thus more readable if a shorter base path is
> chosen.
>
> Is this an idea that would stand a chance being considered for "base", IOW,
> should I file a wishlist ticket on trac?
>
> In fact I have an untested hunch that at least for my own purposes it could
> be useful to have separate trees (and thus potentially separate volumes) for
> source.dir and build.dir/destroot.dir, where possible ... but I also have a
> hunch that would be more anyone could ask for :)
I can't guarantee this won't mess something up, but I think you can already
delete the /opt/local/var/macports/build directory and replace it a symlink to
another volume. Just make certain they're using the same format. Don't, for
example, try to use case-sensitive HFS+ on your main MacPorts volume and
case-insensitive HFS+ on the volume you symlink to the build directory to.
Most users use Macs with a single volume, so I don't think a patch for this is
of general interest.
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
