| 1 |
On 11/07/2014 09:55 PM, Jauhien Piatlicki wrote: |
| 2 |
> 07.11.14 21:44, hasufell написав(ла): |
| 3 |
>> On 11/07/2014 08:56 PM, Jauhien Piatlicki wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> Every time people compare portage to paludis I read stuff like "but |
| 6 |
>> paludis is slower". That is incomplete information to put it diplomatic. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> Do you really care so much about speed that you don't mind wrong results? |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> My original question was about Portage being too slow. And Paludis came out just as an alternative. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> And I would like to see a detailed discussion about what's wrong from the point of view of correctness with: |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> 1. PMS |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> 2. ebuilds in tree |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> 3. Portage dependency solving |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Was this discussed somewhere? Could you point me there? |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
The first thing that comes to my mind is dynamic dependencies. They are |
| 25 |
wrong and that has been discussed recently on this ML. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
If you have ever switched from portage to paludis on a full-grown |
| 28 |
system, then you know how much bad data and missing |
| 29 |
updates/blockers/dependencies are hidden. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
However, it seems that this issue is being addressed by the portage |
| 32 |
team, afair. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Next thing that comes to my mind is: indeterministic results. I'v had |
| 35 |
LOTS of them with portage. You run an emerge, abort. You run it again... |
| 36 |
and woosh, different result. |
| 37 |
I'v not hit that case yet with paludis, unless I ran it with different |
| 38 |
configuration options. |
Archives