| 1 |
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 08:31:21 +0800 |
| 2 |
Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On 01/10/2014 08:16 AM, heroxbd@g.o wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Igor <lanthruster@×××××.com> writes: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> >> The ebuilds have approximately the same time to install, the |
| 7 |
> >> failure rate is about the same, emerge is getting slower. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > I am curious about the slowness of emerge. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > How about profile the portage and rewrite the time-crucial part in |
| 12 |
> > C/C++, or ideally, borrowing the counterpart from paludis? How |
| 13 |
> > feasible is that? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Last I checked paludis wasn't faster - on average portage was a few |
| 16 |
> percents faster. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Your benchmark was comparing uncached behaviour, where bash is the slow |
| 19 |
part and which users don't see. You were also not comparing like with |
| 20 |
like -- any benchmarks of this nature should be taken with a heavy |
| 21 |
pinch of salt, since Portage with everything turned on does less |
| 22 |
validation that Paludis does with everything turned off... |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives