Archives
Archives
| From: | heroxbd@g.o | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-dev@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage QOS | ||
| Date: | Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:17:03 | ||
| Message-Id: | 86r48g8zdc.fsf@moguhome00.in.awa.tohoku.ac.jp | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage QOS by Igor |
||
| 1 | Igor <lanthruster@×××××.com> writes: |
| 2 | |
| 3 | > The ebuilds have approximately the same time to install, the failure |
| 4 | > rate is about the same, emerge is getting slower. |
| 5 | |
| 6 | I am curious about the slowness of emerge. |
| 7 | |
| 8 | How about profile the portage and rewrite the time-crucial part in |
| 9 | C/C++, or ideally, borrowing the counterpart from paludis? How feasible |
| 10 | is that? |
| 11 | |
| 12 | I guess the dep-tree calculation is the slowest part. |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage QOS | Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> |
| Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage QOS | Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> |
| Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage QOS | Igor <lanthruster@×××××.com> |
| Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage QOS | Igor <lanthruster@×××××.com> |
| Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage QOS | Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> |