| 1 |
On Friday, April 24, 2020 1:03 AM, Alec Ten Harmsel <alec@××××××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> If it's so easy, why don't you implement it? /s |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
because busy and got better things in life. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
but what is your point? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
1. are you trying to get to know me a bit closer? |
| 10 |
2. or are you trying to indirectly a claim that |
| 11 |
making portage faster is too hard? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
if (1) then off-topic. if (2) then you're |
| 14 |
committing a logical fallacy. some version of |
| 15 |
appeal to majority? hence your claim is |
| 16 |
unsubstantiated, and is deleted from space thanks |
| 17 |
to occam's razor. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
if it was too hard for most people in the past, it |
| 20 |
doesn't mean that it is hard for everyone else. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
not saying that your claim is wrong. but saying |
| 23 |
that your tool to show that claim is not working. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
not saying that your claim is right either. it's |
| 26 |
so far floating somewhere in the ``unknown'' |
| 27 |
region (until a proof is presented; not a logical |
| 28 |
fallacy). |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> Sorry for being a little glib but every couple months I go through this thought process: |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> 1. Wow, portage is slow |
| 34 |
> 2. I can make this faster, it can't be that hard |
| 35 |
> 3. ...wow, nevermind, it is really hard |
| 36 |
> 4. Thank you portage maintainers!!!!! |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
if your point is to share history, thanks. else: |
| 39 |
logical fallacy (read above). |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> I don't think it's O(log n). Roughly, for 1 package portage has to make the full dep |
| 43 |
> tree, solve all the constraints to resolve to actual packages that can be installed, |
| 44 |
> and order and merge the tree into a single branch of packages to install. I'm |
| 45 |
> probably missing some steps and obviously that's not a rigorous explanation but |
| 46 |
> it's at least O(n) where n is the total number of dependencies. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
not mutually exclusive. your n (number of deps) |
| 49 |
is different than my n (number of packages in |
| 50 |
portage). e.g. i think that : |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
O(your n) = O(log(my n)) |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
i think the real trick is to split portage into |
| 55 |
two separate parts: |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
1. index: pre-compiled indexed global dependency |
| 58 |
graph. this should allow efficient jumping |
| 59 |
into the right spot of the graph to efficiently |
| 60 |
walk around to meet the dependencies based on |
| 61 |
constraints (e.g. USE flags, versions). |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
imo this can do the dependency resolution that |
| 64 |
emerge does in 45 seconds in less than 3 |
| 65 |
seconds. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
2. scripts to carry out the compile/installation. |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
currently portage has (1) and (2) mixed into a |
| 70 |
single directory-based structure containing files |
| 71 |
in a format that is not efficient for graph |
| 72 |
walking, and uses the wrong tool (python). |
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
|
| 75 |
> Speeding up portage would be a fun project but it's less important |
| 76 |
> that portage being correct. |
| 77 |
|
| 78 |
yes, the speed issue is not a problem (more like a |
| 79 |
psychological issue). but that's misleading. |
| 80 |
portage's problems is beyond the timing issue. |
| 81 |
e.g.: |
| 82 |
|
| 83 |
1. the fact that emerge uses python is horrible. |
| 84 |
ideally a package manager must have least |
| 85 |
run-time dependencies possible. but now, |
| 86 |
emerge is based on python, which limits our |
| 87 |
freedom in upgrading python versions in the |
| 88 |
fear of wrecking emerge (and getting stuck, |
| 89 |
needing manual attention). which is why i |
| 90 |
think ideally new emerge should be some |
| 91 |
statically linked compiled binary. |
| 92 |
|
| 93 |
2. i'm sure smart people can point out better |
| 94 |
reasons about how emerge is wrong. |
Archives