--=-/ZCAGtfPOZsT4X3mO4NB
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 00:12 +0100, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:21:54 -0500
> Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
>=20
> >=20
> > On Sat, 2008-03-01 at 20:46 -0500, E. J. Cerejo wrote:
> > > On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 19:20:47 -0500
> > > Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > > On Sat, 2008-03-01 at 19:12 -0500, E. J. Cerejo wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 18:50:53 -0500
> > > > > Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > On Sat, 2008-03-01 at 18:16 -0500, E. J. Cerejo wrote:
> > > > > > > I'm running FreeBSD 7.0RC3 and I'm trying to figure out why e=

volution takes over a minute to start, there are no error messages if I run=
it from terminal window. First I was running 6.3 but I upgraded to 7.0 th=
inking that it might of solve the problem but it didn't. What amazes me is=
, I've got ubuntu installed on the same machine and it only takes 3 seconds=
to start, also it only takes 3 seconds to start in windows. Evolution run=
ning like this is completely worthless. Any ideas what might be causing th=
is? Please respond to my email address also.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > This has been discussed on this mailing list before. The numbe=

r of
> > > > > > plug-ins enabled in Evo slows down the load time as the loader =

is
> > > > > > spinning trying to load each plug-in. You should disable all u=

nneeded
> > > > > > plug-ins.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > Joe
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > --=20
> > > > > > PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc
> > > > >=20
> > > > > Plug-ins don't seem to have an effect when running it on ubuntu, =

all the plug-ins are enabled under ubuntu and still starts in 3 seconds. A=
re you trying to say that the FreeBSD loader is kind of primitive comparing=
to the linux loader?
> > > >=20
> > > > No. I'm saying that the tasks the FreeBSD loader performs takes lo=

nger
> > > > than the ones performed by the Linux loader.
> > >=20
> > > Well, I disabled all the plugins and still takes 40 seconds to open t=

hat's a lot longer than linux with all the plugins enabled. As far I'm con=
cerned evolution is out of my list of programs, I still have my doubts abou=
t the real reason as to why it takes so long to open. In reality there's n=
o real reason as to why a program will take so long to open, if that's the =
case evolution will loose a lot of users in the FreeBSD community.
> >=20
> > You're free to build Evolution and e-d-s with debugging symbols, and
> > watch it load in gdb if you don't believe me. Last time I did this, I
> > found most of the time spent in the loader. Any optimizations would
> > certainly be welcome.

>=20
> I suspect that the patch in this PR would have greatly helped:
>=20
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=3D104877
>=20
> Indeed, a casual inspection of libexec/rtdl-elf/rtld.c shows that the
> SO_NEEDED lists (Obj_Entry.needed) are walked recursively. Removing
> the useless entries might therefore have a dramatic impact on
> performance.


This is what mezz suspected as well, and I believe he will test this.

>=20
> Unfortunately, the affected maintainer has closed the PR, mainly
> because he could not understand it. And portmgr has backed the
> maintainer, mainly because of personal friendship.


We did not side with ade out of friendship. We had to weigh the benefit
of this patch against the benefit of having a dedicated autotools
maintainer. Since autotools is quite complex, but very critical to a
large number of ports, and since we didn't have people lining up to be
autotools maintainers, we opted to respect ade's maintainership of
libtool, and his decision. I don't think you would like it very much if
portmgr told you that you had to commit something to a port that you
maintained.

Personally, I like your patch. I was a big supported (and user) of
ltverhack as well. There are quite a few things I would like to see
committed to FreeBSD (e.g. this patch, pthread changes, etc.) but I have
to respect the wishes of the maintainers of those subsystems as I could
not, nor would not be able to, do a better job.

>=20
> With such irrational behaviours, this trend is not going to reverse
> itself anytime soon:
>=20
> http://www.google.com/trends?q=3Dubuntu%2Cfreebsd


I think portmgr's decision was rational (at least my vote was done
rationally). I'm sorry this has driven a wedge between you and FreeBSD.
I for one really appreciate all you contributed to the FreeBSD GNOME
project, and to GNOME in general.

Joe

--=20
PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc

--=-/ZCAGtfPOZsT4X3mO4NB
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (FreeBSD)

iEYEABECAAYFAkfLRuUACgkQb2iPiv4Uz4dLywCdHQXf9ahob8 M8esMcZKDqPCdA
/eAAoIOhhhBb9JitplA+TyKFykEmC1o8
=HCVD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-/ZCAGtfPOZsT4X3mO4NB--