On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 22:27:49 +0200, George Liaskos wrote:
>> Building INDEX is not essential in this thread, merging trees is
>> closer to subject,
>> but primary I want, that testing development version of ports will be
>> simpler.
>>
>> Please look at: 'Firefox 4 - Beta' threat:
>> http://lists.f
On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 22:27 +0200, George Liaskos wrote:
> > Martin wrote:
> >> I'll cleanup all the mess and commit all stuff to the xorg-dev repo. Maybe
> >> someone have intressing to test it.
> > but without any info where I can find xorg-dev repo,
> > How I can test new xorg, since I don't kn
> Building INDEX is not essential in this thread, merging trees is
> closer to subject,
> but primary I want, that testing development version of ports will be simpler.
>
> Please look at: 'Firefox 4 - Beta' threat:
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2011-March/066353.html
> some pe
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 18:13, Warren Block wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2011, Warren Block wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2011, Michel Talon wrote:
>
>>> My experience is that all FreeBSD ports tools are incredibly slow, be it
>>> portupgrade, portmaster, even the basic tools like pkg_version. Maybe it
>>>
>portmaster -L --index-only 0.76s user 1.65s system 6% cpu 38.871 total
>
>So it takes 38s on a *very small* installation. My experience is that
>all FreeBSD ports tools are incredibly slow, be it portupgrade,
>portmaster, even the basic tools like pkg_version. Maybe it would help
>to recognize th
On Tue, 8 Mar 2011, Warren Block wrote:
On Tue, 8 Mar 2011, Michel Talon wrote:
My experience is that all FreeBSD ports tools are incredibly slow, be it
portupgrade, portmaster, even the basic tools like pkg_version. Maybe it
would help to recognize that such observations are perhaps not unre
On Tue, 8 Mar 2011, Michel Talon wrote:
Warren Block writes:
portmaster -L | filterfu: 43.6
pkg_version -vl'<':30.5
portversion -vl'<': 3.6
portmaster -L --index-only: 2.5
I don't have the same experience by far:
on a jail i have:
.
===>>> 68 total installed ports
Warren Block writes:
> It continues to amaze me how much you have in there. Oh, and my times
> earlier were probably user time rather than wall time, for which I'll
> shiftily blame the difference between csh's time builtin and
> /usr/bin/time. Redoing that:
>
> portmaster -L | filterfu: 43.
On Sun, 6 Mar 2011, Doug Barton wrote:
On 03/06/2011 17:59, Warren Block wrote:
pkg_version is somewhat faster.
True, but 'portmaster -L' (with a ports tree) gives you more information.
Such as when ports you have installed have been DEPRECATED or MOVED. :)
'portmaster -L --index-only' is
On 03/06/2011 17:59, Warren Block wrote:
On Sun, 6 Mar 2011, Doug Barton wrote:
On 03/06/2011 16:40, Olivier Smedts wrote:
Could you use "pkg_version -vL =" for your purpose ? It's a base
system tool and doesn't need INDEX.
If all you want to know is what ports need updating, portmaster has
On Sun, 6 Mar 2011, Doug Barton wrote:
On 03/06/2011 16:40, Olivier Smedts wrote:
Could you use "pkg_version -vL =" for your purpose ? It's a base
system tool and doesn't need INDEX.
If all you want to know is what ports need updating, portmaster has an option
for that. There is also an ali
On 03/06/2011 16:40, Olivier Smedts wrote:
Could you use "pkg_version -vL =" for your purpose ? It's a base
system tool and doesn't need INDEX.
If all you want to know is what ports need updating, portmaster has an
option for that. There is also an alias to abbreviate the output in the
man p
2011/3/6 Grzegorz Blach :
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 23:25, Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 03/06/2011 10:37, Grzegorz Blach wrote:
>>>
>>> On 03/06/2011 18:35, b. f. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I read last post Martin Wilke's blog called "
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 23:25, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 03/06/2011 10:37, Grzegorz Blach wrote:
>>
>> On 03/06/2011 18:35, b. f. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I read last post Martin Wilke's blog called "FreeBSD needs fresh Blood!"
>>>>
>>
On 03/06/2011 10:37, Grzegorz Blach wrote:
On 03/06/2011 18:35, b. f. wrote:
I read last post Martin Wilke's blog called "FreeBSD needs fresh Blood!"
First of all, I think it's difficult to testing ports
No argument there, it can be hard work.
I'm using testing r
On 3/6/11, Grzegorz Blach wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 03/06/2011 18:35, b. f. wrote:
...
>>> First of all, I think it's difficult to testing ports.
...
> Multiple trees don't help me a lot, portmaster became fools.
> There is no significant difference if I use v
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/06/2011 18:35, b. f. wrote:
>> I read last post Martin Wilke's blog called "FreeBSD needs fresh Blood!"
>>
>> First of all, I think it's difficult to testing ports.
>>
>> I'm using testing r
On Sunday 06 March 2011 18:35:10 b. f. wrote:
> It sounds like you are using the wrong tools. Although portsnap (which
> is not best suited for this purpose) has path arguments and an -l flag
> that can be used to add or preserve local changes, and both
portmaster
> and portupgrade have options to
On 3/6/11, b. f. wrote:
...
>> First of all, I think it's difficult to testing ports.
...
>> Another possibility is replace ports in disk, but after upgrade tree eg.
>> with portsnap I lose my changes, and portmaster want to rebuild these
>> ports to stable release.
...
> It sounds like you are us
> I read last post Martin Wilke's blog called "FreeBSD needs fresh Blood!"
>
> First of all, I think it's difficult to testing ports.
>
> I'm using testing release of VirtualBox,
> but for build this port I must download patches,
> apply its on my own
I read last post Martin Wilke's blog called "FreeBSD needs fresh Blood!"
First of all, I think it's difficult to testing ports.
I'm using testing release of VirtualBox,
but for build this port I must download patches,
apply its on my own tree and merge its with offici
21 matches
Mail list logo
