| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:28:43 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> Fernando J. Pereda wrote: |
| 5 |
>> > A big gain in the context of ebuilds and source packages. Well done. |
| 6 |
>> > |
| 7 |
>> Yes, almost as important as not sourcing any ebuilds, so let's all |
| 8 |
>> stick an EAPI extension on the end of the filename. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> If you really think that EAPI as an extension has anything to do with |
| 11 |
> performance |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
You mentioned performance a few times in that lovely thread when it got shot |
| 14 |
down, I believe in the context of metadata generation: |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
"Performance hit" (when discussing an alternative) [1] |
| 17 |
"The GLEP is not about performance, but any solution that forces the |
| 18 |
introduction of a slowdown of more than, say, 20%, isn't viable." [2] |
| 19 |
"It's several more directory reads. This is a measurable performance |
| 20 |
hit" [3] |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Are you now saying performance doesn't matter? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> , you are even more sadly mistaken than usual |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
My how the insults fly.. must be a new academic year. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> , and I |
| 29 |
> suggest you lay off the GLEP 55 bashing until you've bothered to read |
| 30 |
> it. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
Yeah cos obviously I never read it when it was last discussed. Way to go |
| 33 |
with unfounded, clearly absurd, assertions. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/53512 |
| 36 |
[2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/53751 |
| 37 |
[3] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/53668 |
Archives