using ninja instead of make

Rainer Müller raimue at
Sun Jan 4 06:27:15 PST 2015

On 2015-01-01 23:16, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> On Thursday January 01 2015 22:38:32 Clemens Lang wrote:
>> The only configuration system (of relevant size and adoption) that
>> falls into this category is CMake. We could use ninja instead of
>> make for all CMake ports, but
> That's what I had in mind.
>> orders of magnitude faster) than make when build times are largely
>> dominated by the compile times itself, rather than the execution
>> time of the build tool.
> I must admit that I share your scepticism, but I've been seeing too
> many comments to the contrary lately that I'm getting interested to
> try things out. As you said, this would be in conjunction with CMake,
> which also happens to generate Makefiles that are very verbose. That
> adds considerable overhead (esp. with the long path names courtesy of
> MacPorts' build directory), which could well exceed the time required
> for the actual destroot step.

I don't think the file size of generated Makefiles is important at all.
They are generated and then used almost immediately afterwards, so they
still reside in the buffer cache in kernel memory and do not need to be
read again from disk.


More information about the macports-dev mailing list