port install efficiency issue

[Frank J. R. Hanstick]

Hello,
	Wouldn't it be better and faster to do the check at request time  
rather than wait until everything has been done and then request if  
an update is wanted rather than an install?
Frank

On Mar 22, 2009, at 6:56 AM, Rainer Müller wrote:

> Darren Weber wrote:
>> What is up with port?  It just ran for about 15 mins to build a  
>> package
>> that is already installed.  If I were to work on the same damn thing,
>> repeating it all day, day after day, I would get the sack pretty
>> quickly.  Just think of the useless load on the network and the  
>> servers
>> for all those futile downloads, etc.
>
> I agree with you, that this is not ideal. But I also don't know why  
> port
> was made to behave in this way.
>
>> So tell me, why shouldn't I switch
>> to fink?  At least Debian has a decent package management system,  
>> geez!
>
> Uh, just a single bug or flaw gets you change to another system?
>
> I know and admit MacPorts is not perfect. But be aware that there  
> are a
> few people working on the bugs you report. Ranting against MacPorts
> isn't helpful at all to get bugs fixed - especially it's not good for
> motivation.
>
> Please keep your reports specific and constructive. If you go on
> comparing MacPorts with other similar projects, I would hope it is no
> problem to say, "X is better at Y than MacPorts, because it does Z".
>
> Rainer
> _______________________________________________
> macports-users mailing list
> macports-users at lists.macosforge.org
> http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users

Frank J. R. Hanstick
trog24 at comcast.net



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-users/attachments/20090322/cf24f330/attachment.html>