| 1 |
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Michael Seifert |
| 2 |
<michael.seifert@×××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Am 23.03.2011 11:12, schrieb Fabian Groffen: |
| 4 |
>> How much do you lose to fetch the ebuilds you need eventually? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I cannot tell you at this stage, sorry. The real loss for steps 3/4 has |
| 7 |
> to be measured after the implementation. The problem with the estimates |
| 8 |
> here is that the assembled ebuilds also contain the sources and the |
| 9 |
> eclasses. Maybe I will do some number crunching on a few selected ebuilds. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
A more critical factor could be the dependencies - unless we otherwise |
| 13 |
cache them. To install a package you need to walk the dependency tree |
| 14 |
(well, at least until you hit installed packages with the right USE |
| 15 |
flags). That requires one set of fetches for each level you traverse, |
| 16 |
and that means at least one round trip per level. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Is this a solution in search of a problem? It seems like there are a |
| 19 |
lot of tradeoffs with an approach like this. If space or compression |
| 20 |
CPU, etc is the real issue, would it make more sense to just gzip all |
| 21 |
the ebuilds or something? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Rich |
Archives