On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 11:34:35AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > Wesley Shields wrote: > > The problem was not with portmaster, > > That's always good news. :) > > > but was with the reliance on > > pkg_which. The attached patch should fit it. I currently have sent it > > to itetcu and miwi for review. The biggest downside is that pkg_info can > > not take multiple arguments on the command line like pkg_which does, so > > we have to use xargs -L 1, which makes things slow compared to using > > pkg_which. > > Have you benchmarked that? I would imagine (although I don't know for > sure) that pkg_which is just calling whatever method it uses to get > the answer once each time for each command line argument, which would > mean that they are basically equivalent.
No I have not run any tests so I could be entirely wrong there. Either way, I don't think it's that big of a deal. I just wanted something that worked with portmaster so I don't have to install portupgrade and it's dependencies just to update python. > It seems that the current solution is needlessly complicated (although > I haven't benchmarked either). What would be wrong with something like: > > for file in `find <pythondir> -type f`; do > pkg_info -qW $file > done | sort -u I agree, it can likely be simplified quite a bit. This was just a quick hack to get something working for those of us who use portmaster and not portupgrade. -- WXS _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "cvs-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
