; -Original Message-
> From: owner-freebsd-curr...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> curr...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Oleg Moskalenko
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 6:45 PM
> To: FreeBSD Current
> Subject: RE: [HEADS-UP] BSD sort is the default sort in -CURRENT
>
> Hi
&g
r nthreads==>parallel renaming, NBSD will support all
> NGNU options.
>
> Thank you for the suggestion.
> Oleg
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Doug Barton [mailto:do...@freebsd.org]
>> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 2:02 PM
>> To: Oleg Moskalenko
&g
leg
> -Original Message-
> From: Doug Barton [mailto:do...@freebsd.org]
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 2:02 PM
> To: Oleg Moskalenko
> Cc: FreeBSD Current
> Subject: Re: [HEADS-UP] BSD sort is the default sort in -CURRENT
>
> On 06/29/2012 01:50 PM, Oleg Moskalenko wrote:
>
On 06/29/2012 01:50 PM, Oleg Moskalenko wrote:
> 5) NBSD adds several of its own new proprietary options:
>
> --mergesort
> --qsort
> --heapsort
> --radixsort
> --nthreads=... (multi-threaded build only)
Oleg,
First, thank you very much for providing both the performance numbers,
and t
ebsd.org] On Behalf Of Oleg Moskalenko
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 6:45 PM
> To: FreeBSD Current
> Subject: RE: [HEADS-UP] BSD sort is the default sort in -CURRENT
>
> Hi
>
> As promised, I am supplying an example of comparison between several
> sort programs.
Hi
As promised, I am supplying an example of comparison between several sort
programs.
The test file is a randomly generated 1,000,000 lines, each line contain a
single floating point number.
We are going to sort it three ways - as text, as -n numeric sort, and as -g
numeric sort, with 4 pro
On 2012.06.27. 8:11, O. Hartmann wrote:
... so, can I delete the entry
WITH_BSD_SORT=yes
in /etc/src.conf then?
Yes. BSD sort will still be the default. And if you want default GNU
sort, you can add WITH_GNU_SORT=yes.
Gabor
___
freebsd-current@freebs
On 2012.06.27. 10:34, Doug Barton wrote:
Great, can you post the results somewhere? I understand what you're
saying below that there are situations where worse performance may need
explanation, but it would be helpful if we had the data to look at.
If something is buggy than it is not comparable
>> From: olli hauer [mailto:oha...@gmx.de]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 10:56 AM
>> To: FreeBSD Current
>> Cc: Gabor Kovesdan; Oleg Moskalenko
>> Subject: Re: [HEADS-UP] BSD sort is the default sort in -CURRENT
>>
>> On 2012-06-27 08:04, Gabor Ko
age-
> From: olli hauer [mailto:oha...@gmx.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 10:56 AM
> To: FreeBSD Current
> Cc: Gabor Kovesdan; Oleg Moskalenko
> Subject: Re: [HEADS-UP] BSD sort is the default sort in -CURRENT
>
> On 2012-06-27 08:04, Gabor Kovesdan wrote:
> > Hi
On Jun 27, 2012, at 8:56 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
> So can we please stop pretending that it's me who's the problem, and
> start looking at these things rationally?
What is your short list of issues? From a high level there appear to be none,
but the devil is in the details, eh?
From earlier in
On 2012-06-27 08:04, Gabor Kovesdan wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> as I announced before, the default sort in -CURRENT has been changed
> to BSD sort. Since the import, the reported minor bugs have been
> fixed and BSD sort has passed the portbuild test. If you encounter any
> problems or incompatibility
Ah, I just tried sort on freebsd (5.3.0) versus sort on macosx 10.6
(5.93) - what a strange bug.
We _could've_ fixed this with an import of the latest gnu sort and
then migrated to a feature/bug compatible bsdsort, but I do see your
point(s). :-)
There's a fine line to walk between keeping POLA a
I officially withdraw from the discussion. I hope it all works out well.
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 06/27/2012 07:30 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>
>>
>> --- Mer 27/6/12, Doug Barton ha scritto:
>> ...
>>>
I believe we do not
make this kind of work with any vendor code that is
>>> being updated in the
base;
>>>
>>> Au contrair
AM
> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: [HEADS-UP] BSD sort is the default sort in -CURRENT
>
> Daniel Gerzo :
>
> > On 27.06.2012 10:43, Doug Barton wrote:
> >> On 06/27/2012 02:09 AM, Oleg Moskalenko wrote:
> >>> Doug, I'll post some perfor
> -Original Message-
>
> > But I do not agree with you that we have to reproduce the old sort
> bugs.
> > It makes no sense and I am not going to do that. Absolutely not.
>
> That isn't what I said. What I asked is for you to *test* the existing
> sort vs. the new one, and to report where
--- Mer 27/6/12, Doug Barton ha scritto:
...
>
> Nope.
>
> > I would think only the maintainer of the package has
> the
> > authority to make any request in the lines of being
> > bug-for-bug compatible
>
> You have a seriously wrong idea of "maintainer." The
> community owns the software, it
On 06/27/2012 07:30 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>
>
> --- Mer 27/6/12, Doug Barton ha scritto:
> ...
>>
>>> I believe we do not
>>> make this kind of work with any vendor code that is
>> being updated in the
>>> base;
>>
>> Au contraire, we frequently avoid updating the old versions
>> of things we
--- Mer 27/6/12, Doug Barton ha scritto:
...
>
> > I believe we do not
> > make this kind of work with any vendor code that is
> being updated in the
> > base;
>
> Au contraire, we frequently avoid updating the old versions
> of things we have in the base precisely because they are
> not bug-f
On 06/27/2012 03:02 AM, Daniel Gerzo wrote:
> On 27.06.2012 10:43, Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 06/27/2012 02:09 AM, Oleg Moskalenko wrote:
>>> Doug, I'll post some performance figures, probably tomorrow.
>>
>> That's great, thanks.
>>
>>> But I do not agree with you that we have to reproduce the old s
Daniel Gerzo :
On 27.06.2012 10:43, Doug Barton wrote:
On 06/27/2012 02:09 AM, Oleg Moskalenko wrote:
Doug, I'll post some performance figures, probably tomorrow.
That's great, thanks.
But I do not agree with you that we have to reproduce the old sort bugs.
It makes no sense and I am not g
On 27.06.2012 10:43, Doug Barton wrote:
On 06/27/2012 02:09 AM, Oleg Moskalenko wrote:
Doug, I'll post some performance figures, probably tomorrow.
That's great, thanks.
But I do not agree with you that we have to reproduce the old sort
bugs.
It makes no sense and I am not going to do that.
On 06/27/2012 02:09 AM, Oleg Moskalenko wrote:
> Doug, I'll post some performance figures, probably tomorrow.
That's great, thanks.
> But I do not agree with you that we have to reproduce the old sort bugs.
> It makes no sense and I am not going to do that. Absolutely not.
That isn't what I said
arton [mailto:do...@freebsd.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:35 AM
> To: Oleg Moskalenko
> Cc: Gabor Kovesdan; FreeBSD Current
> Subject: Re: [HEADS-UP] BSD sort is the default sort in -CURRENT
>
> On 06/26/2012 11:48 PM, Oleg Moskalenko wrote:
> >
> >
>
On 06/26/2012 11:48 PM, Oleg Moskalenko wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message- From: Doug Barton
>> [mailto:do...@freebsd.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 11:18 PM
>> To: Gabor Kovesdan Cc: FreeBSD Current; Oleg Moskalenko Subject:
>> Re: [HEADS-UP] BSD sort i
> -Original Message-
> From: Doug Barton [mailto:do...@freebsd.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 11:18 PM
> To: Gabor Kovesdan
> Cc: FreeBSD Current; Oleg Moskalenko
> Subject: Re: [HEADS-UP] BSD sort is the default sort in -CURRENT
>
> On 06/26/2012 11:04
On 06/26/2012 11:04 PM, Gabor Kovesdan wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> as I announced before, the default sort in -CURRENT has been changed
> to BSD sort.
Has this been performance tested vs. the old one? If so, where are the
results?
> Since the import, the reported minor bugs have been
> fixed and BSD
On 06/27/12 08:04, Gabor Kovesdan wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> as I announced before, the default sort in -CURRENT has been changed
> to BSD sort. Since the import, the reported minor bugs have been
> fixed and BSD sort has passed the portbuild test. If you encounter any
> problems or incompatibility w
29 matches
Mail list logo