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 / / |