On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Peter Jeremy pe...@rulingia.com wrote:
On my E3-1230v2 system (not a slouch), the difference is 1s to 110s -
which is in line with Matthew's results.
Yes, this change makes ports almost unusable on FreeBSD 9.3-stable.
A two-orders-of-magnitude slowdown in
OTOH I do not want to use ghostscript !
In my view ghost is a critically important port.
I will not be able to use FreeBSD productively withouth it.
Since I have no time or skill to contribute to
address the slowness problem, I'm happy to put
up with the extra hour.
Anton
From m...@freebsd.org Thu Aug 20 09:33:38 2015
+--On 20 ao=C3=BBt 2015 08:24:25 +0100 Anton Shterenlikht =
me...@bris.ac.uk
wrote:
| OTOH I do not want to use ghostscript !
|=20
| In my view ghost is a critically important port.
| I will not be able to use FreeBSD productively withouth it.
|
On 2015-08-20 09:32, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
+--On 20 août 2015 08:24:25 +0100 Anton Shterenlikht me...@bris.ac.uk
wrote:
| OTOH I do not want to use ghostscript !
|
| In my view ghost is a critically important port.
| I will not be able to use FreeBSD productively withouth it.
| Since I
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
I'm not exactly sure what you're all complaining about. The port just
works fine, it does take a few seconds for make to iterate over all
options, but it's because the port has way too many options. It's not as
if you're all sitting behind your desk
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
[...]
It's not as
if you're all sitting behind your desk looking at the screen waiting for it
to finish.
I can not wait for this:
ls -al /usr/ports/print/ghostscript9
total 88
drwxr-xr-x3 root wheel512 Aug 20 12:15 .
drwxr-xr-x 262 root
On 2015-Aug-20 10:08:37 -0500, Matthew D. Fuller fulle...@over-yonder.net
wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 08:32:07AM +0100 I heard the voice of
Mathieu Arnold, and lo! it spake thus:
I'm not exactly sure what you're all complaining about. The port
just works fine, it does take a few seconds
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015, Henk van Oers wrote:
[root@mbox /usr/ports/print/ghostscript9]# time date
Thu Aug 20 13:49:43 CEST 2015
real0m0.003s
user0m0.003s
sys 0m0.001s
[root@mbox /usr/ports/print/ghostscript9]# time make clean
[...]
[root@mbox /usr/ports/print/ghostscript9]#
+--On 20 août 2015 08:24:25 +0100 Anton Shterenlikht me...@bris.ac.uk
wrote:
| OTOH I do not want to use ghostscript !
|
| In my view ghost is a critically important port.
| I will not be able to use FreeBSD productively withouth it.
| Since I have no time or skill to contribute to
| address
+--On 19 août 2015 11:51:07 +0200 Luca Pizzamiglio
luca.pizzamig...@gmail.com wrote:
| Hi Henk,
| same here.
|
| make -V PKGNAME in ghostscript9 takes a huge amount of time.
| BTW, every make in ghostscript* takes a lot of time.
|
| I've no idea why.
Because it stupidly has a gazillions
+--On 19 aot 2015 11:51:07 +0200 Luca Pizzamiglio
luca.pizzamiglio at gmail.com wrote:
| Hi Henk,
| same here.
|
| make -V PKGNAME in ghostscript9 takes a huge amount of time.
| BTW, every make in ghostscript* takes a lot of time.
|
| I've no idea why.
Because it stupidly has a gazillions
Hi Henk,
same here.
make -V PKGNAME in ghostscript9 takes a huge amount of time.
BTW, every make in ghostscript* takes a lot of time.
I've no idea why.
Best regards,
Luca
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 5:45 AM, Henk van Oers h...@signature.nl wrote:
All my ports are up to date,
but running
All my ports are up to date,
but running ''portmaster -va'' on ~1000 ports takes more then 50 minutes.
Most time is spend on ghostscript9-9.06_10
I started a ''portmaster ghostscript9-9.06_10'' a while ago
and it does not do any thing yet but using 100% CPU on one prosessor.
What is going on?
13 matches
Mail list logo
