1 |
On Feb 3, 2014 9:17 PM, "Alan McKinnon" <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> On 03/02/2014 16:04, Pandu Poluan wrote: |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> > On Jan 28, 2014 5:57 AM, "Neil Bothwick" <neil@××××××××××.uk |
6 |
> > <mailto:neil@××××××××××.uk>> wrote: |
7 |
> >> |
8 |
> >> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:54:28 +0100, hasufell wrote: |
9 |
> >> |
10 |
> >> > >> If it's about performance (in the sense of speed), then paludis |
11 |
> >> > >> is worse, because dependency calculation is more complex/complete |
12 |
> >> > >> there. |
13 |
> >> > > |
14 |
> >> > > That makes no sense at all. Paludis is written in a different |
15 |
> >> > > language using different algorithms. It's not about the amount of |
16 |
> >> > > work it does so much as how efficiently it does it. |
17 |
> >> |
18 |
> >> > That's exactly what I was saying. I was talking about speed, not |
19 |
> >> > efficiency. |
20 |
> >> |
21 |
> >> But the efficiency of the algorithm, and the language, affects the |
22 |
speed. |
23 |
> >> You can't presume "it does more, therefore it takes longer" if the two |
24 |
> >> programs do things in very different ways. |
25 |
> >> |
26 |
> > |
27 |
> > I was thinking: is it feasible, to "precalculate" the dependency tree? |
28 |
> > Or, at least "preprocess" all the sane (and insane) dependencies to help |
29 |
> > portage? |
30 |
> |
31 |
> |
32 |
> I thought that's what the portage cache does, as far as it can. |
33 |
> |
34 |
> True, the cache reflects the state of the tree and not the parts of the |
35 |
> tree a given machine is using, so how big a diff does that give? And |
36 |
> don't forget overlays - they can slow things down immensely as more |
37 |
> often than not there's no cache for them unless the user knows to do it |
38 |
> manually. |
39 |
> |
40 |
|
41 |
Well, AFAIK, portage needs to kind of simulate everything going on in an |
42 |
ebuild to get the list of dependencies/blockers... If this can be |
43 |
'pre-simulated' resulting in a simpler to parse 'database' of |
44 |
dependencies... |
45 |
|
46 |
Rgds, |
47 |
-- |