| 1 |
On 03/02/2014 16:04, Pandu Poluan wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Jan 28, 2014 5:57 AM, "Neil Bothwick" <neil@××××××××××.uk |
| 4 |
> <mailto:neil@××××××××××.uk>> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:54:28 +0100, hasufell wrote: |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> > >> If it's about performance (in the sense of speed), then paludis |
| 9 |
>> > >> is worse, because dependency calculation is more complex/complete |
| 10 |
>> > >> there. |
| 11 |
>> > > |
| 12 |
>> > > That makes no sense at all. Paludis is written in a different |
| 13 |
>> > > language using different algorithms. It's not about the amount of |
| 14 |
>> > > work it does so much as how efficiently it does it. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> > That's exactly what I was saying. I was talking about speed, not |
| 17 |
>> > efficiency. |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> But the efficiency of the algorithm, and the language, affects the speed. |
| 20 |
>> You can't presume "it does more, therefore it takes longer" if the two |
| 21 |
>> programs do things in very different ways. |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> I was thinking: is it feasible, to "precalculate" the dependency tree? |
| 25 |
> Or, at least "preprocess" all the sane (and insane) dependencies to help |
| 26 |
> portage? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I thought that's what the portage cache does, as far as it can. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
True, the cache reflects the state of the tree and not the parts of the |
| 32 |
tree a given machine is using, so how big a diff does that give? And |
| 33 |
don't forget overlays - they can slow things down immensely as more |
| 34 |
often than not there's no cache for them unless the user knows to do it |
| 35 |
manually. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 40 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives