On 5/26/26 21:33, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > Hi! > >>> The ports tree is a dependency tree. To target the fastest way for >>> upgrades would require to rebuild if a dependency changes >>> and to optimise the longest path, compile-time-wise. > >> I don't think I articulated what I meant thoroughly. >> By distributed I mean something like folding@home where a user >> would get a slice of work and process/upload it. > > Again, it's a dependency tree. You can not parallelize more > than a certain number, because nodes would have to wait for other nodes > to finish before they can work. So one has to reduce > the dependencies and shorten the longest path. >
I do not see in void's wording anything indicating that the unit of work would be a builder run of one port-package-build. He may well be allowing for make-job or process level distribution or the like. There is no suggestion of any detailed specifics for the unit of work involved. I'm not saying that any such is readily practical. Just the security issues around executable code being involved in the kind of results generated by uncontrolled systems lead to a more general blocking issue as far as I can tell. folding@home just does not have such security issues. -- === Mark Millard marklmi at yahoo.com
