Mojca Miklavec mojca at macports.org
Wed Jan 14 04:06:01 PST 2015

On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 11:55 AM, René J.V. wrote:
> Hi,
> Good idea(s) ... but not easy indeed.
> Isn't there a script that automates the process?

There might be one, but that doesn't really help us to make the
package(s). It is helpful for the creator of the Portfile to know
which steps are needed, but one cannot just use a script

> I don't think btw that current libgcc portfile implementations exploit the code-sharing efficiency thing, something I wondered about myself. I guess that the gcc code tree isn't large enough to be an issue even on current SSDs, and that unpacking it is only an issue on HDDs so slow that you'd be handicapped by them anyway?

(Talking about libgcc compile time ... I believe it must take over 24
hours to compile libgcc on iBook G4 and then it breaks anyway. Then
Jeremy updates files, so another day ... and so on. I've been trying
to install a working compiler on Leopard since Sunday; no success

It's not about the time needed to extract files. But I think it took
me somewhere between one and two hours to cross-compile gcc (Intel
Core 2 Duo from 2009). And then another two hours just to perform
exactly the same compilations again in steps (e) and (g) which could
have been avoided entirely. (Please don't take the numbers about the
time it took for granted. All I remember is that it was looooooooooong
and that I could have avoided much of the compilation time if I could
repeat the compilation from the same tree.)

Sure, take the 6-core Mac Pro with an SSD an nobody will care about
the optimisation any longer, but that's still not the excuse for
making things inefficient ;) Then again it's still better to have a
non-optimized installation that gets you the result than not having
the software available in the first place.


More information about the macports-dev mailing list