On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 07:19:47AM -0600, Robin Schoonover wrote: > On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 15:02:35 +0200, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: > > Martin <nakal_at_web.de> writes: > > > I would personally like it to use XML. I'm developing a small > > > application which is a kind of GUI for ports (works like a > > > browser). It is very difficult to parse the Makefiles to find > > > out which version number and which dependencies it has. Some > > > versions (like KDE3) are just variables and I don't have an > > > idea how to fetch them yet. > > > > make -V > > > > I use make -V a lot, and it's slow (every time you run it, make has to > reread all the bsd.*.mk files, such as bsd.port.mk). The speed isn't much > of an issue when you only do one or two ports, but when you are examining > the entire ports collection, you notice. > > That said, I'd still rather use a makefile based ports system anyway. Necessarily, *any* file format you choose will need to parse auxilliary files analogous to bsd.port.mk. There's just no getting around the fact that ports rely on a lot of infrastructure and conditional evaluation to set their variables (although it can be optimized relative to what we have in CVS today [1]). Note that it's intentional that a lot of things are centralized in bsd.port.mk where they may be easily maintained, instead of being set in 10000 individual makefiles. Kris [1] As a test, I recently was able to cut index build times by 60% from 5 to a little over 2 minutes on test box with fast disks, by stripping out (almost) everything non-essential from the 'make describe' code path.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:51 UTC