1 |
2010/3/22 Brian Dolbec <brian.dolbec@×××××.com>: |
2 |
> Dmitry: I was not misleading you, (I think you meant misunderstood), and |
3 |
> yes I was interested in your script. |
4 |
Yes, sorry, my english is bad for now. =) |
5 |
|
6 |
> I am interested in working with you if you would like to work on it, in |
7 |
> a way that would be integrated with the current python code base. |
8 |
I love gentoo and I want to contribute in any way. Thanks for your offer. |
9 |
|
10 |
But I aimed to participate in gsoc. Now I am diving in to program |
11 |
projects, so have not any free time. If you want I can help you later. |
12 |
It will be useful experience for me. |
13 |
|
14 |
> I found that your script along with Nirbheek's idea of running eclean on |
15 |
> each machine and then finding the common files, is a poor, although |
16 |
> simple way of doing it. The reason I think it is poor is that since the |
17 |
> distfiles are NFS shared, and that each instance of eclean accesses |
18 |
> those files, it's an unnecessary use of resources for files that are |
19 |
> largely common to all/nearly all systems. The other thing is that a |
20 |
> large part of the search for files to clean means accessing the portage |
21 |
> tree to obtain the source file names for installed packages by using |
22 |
> portage function calls. The tree is also most likely being shared, |
23 |
> which again unnecessarily uses resources for those pkgs and versions in |
24 |
> common. Now imagine an install with 100 clients using the same |
25 |
> distfiles and portage tree server all doing that for 1,000 installed |
26 |
> ebuilds. It would be a tremendous waste of resources, not to mention a |
27 |
> huge increase in run time. |
28 |
Totally agree with you! |
29 |
|
30 |
> If someone has a small, yet large enough system |
31 |
> that could be used for proper testing ( -p, --pretend mode of course) |
32 |
> also speak up. |
33 |
I have such system and interested in testing. |