Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Georgi Georgiev <chutz@×××.net>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New category proposal
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 11:04:01
Message-Id: 20050510110404.GB5931@ols-dell.gg3.net
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New category proposal by Martin Schlemmer
1 maillog: 10/05/2005-11:28:21(+0200): Martin Schlemmer types
2 > On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 13:07 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
3 > > Georgi Georgiev wrote: [Sun May 08 2005, 08:19:20PM EDT]
4 > > > Would it be inappropriate to start bitching (again) about a flat
5 > > > tree where each package can go in multiple categories?
6 > >
7 > > That's something I'd love to see eventually... I mean the flat tree,
8 > > not the complaining ;-)
9 > >
10 >
11 > Problem with flat tree, is the search times might then suck even more,
12 > as last I heard, too many dirs/files in one directory have a huge speed
13 > penalty.
14
15 The flat tree does not imply a flat hierarchy on disk. Files and
16 directories can still be organized in a more optimized manner. For
17 example -- put each package in a directory of its first letter. Maybe
18 even two letters if you think that the winner 'g' with 736 packages is
19 too many.
20
21 This is only true when the portage tree is stored on a filesystem. I
22 recall some effort being made in making portage support reading the
23 portage tree from a zipfile, so we may eventually see some other
24 backends that would not suffer from this problem.
25
26 If that's the only problem you're having with the flat tree, should I
27 consider you a supporter?
28
29 --
30 / Georgi Georgiev / The Golden Rule of Arts and Sciences: He who /
31 \ chutz@×××.net \ has the gold makes the rules. \
32 / +81(90)2877-8845 / /

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New category proposal Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o>