On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 12:47:21PM +0200, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > Baptiste Daroussin wrote on 04/02/2016 15:00: > > On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 02:59:06PM +0200, Michael Grimm wrote: > >> Baptiste Daroussin <b...@freebsd.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 02:42:06PM +0200, Michael Grimm wrote: > >> > >>>> 26 seconds for 74 ports within a jail and pkg-1.6.4: > >> […] > >>>> 309 seconds for the very same 74 ports within the very same jail and > >>>> pkg-1.7.0: > >> […] > >>>> Is this an expected slow-down? /usr/ports/UPGRADE and > >>>> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/ports-mgmt/pkg/?view=log are not > >>>> indicating that behavior. > >>>> But I might have missed something. > >>>> > >>>> Any feedback is highly appriciated, thanks, and regards, > >>> > >>> pkg 1.7 is IO intensive that may explain. > >> > >> Ok, understood. > >> > >> JFTR: perl (24s), python27 (44s), and ruby (125s) take the longest time to > >> reinstall. > >> > >>> I plan to readd some improvements on this side before 1.8 > >> > >> Good to know, thanks for your feedback. > >> > > Thank you very very much for yours! very much appreciated, it helps > > improving > > things! > > I already upgraded to 1.7.1. Is it possible to downgrade it back to > 1.6.4 or are there some incompatible changes in database? (I can build > 1.6.4 by downgrading the port in my poudriere)
No incompatibilities so you can downgrade > > And I have one question about this info from commit message: > ------------------ > - if the all process operation would have an inpact of less than 1MB on > the FS then the action is proceed with out asking the user to acknowledge it > ------------------ > > Does it means that pkg upgrade, pkg autoremove etc. will proceed without > asking Y/N? > Is this behavior configurable and can it be reverted? The purpose of pkg 1.7.1 was to fix that regression (your quote explains the regression) Bapt
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
