Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Things one could be upset about
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2015 21:13:05
Message-Id: 54BAD058.8050406@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Things one could be upset about by Patrick Lauer
1 On 01/17/2015 03:35 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
2 > * Portage is too slow
3 > On 'small' hardware emerge -upNDv @world can take enough time
4 > to make updates prohibitive - on an 800Mhz machine it took me
5 > about 3 days to figure out a solution to some silly blockers due to the
6 > very slow change test cycle
7 > Fix: Do some profiling and un-refactoring to remove useless code
8 > Fix: Set up a reference system (CI) to catch future regressions
9
10 I'm certainly in favor of improving portage performance. However, for
11 "small" hardware (which includes many ARM and MIPS systems), we really
12 need to focus on binary package support. Note that dependency resolution
13 for installing binary packages tends to be much simpler than for
14 building ebuilds from source, and this translates into much shorter
15 dependency resolution time.
16
17 As I have expressed in other emails [1], I am currently working on
18 making Gentoo's binary package support more competitive with binary
19 distros. I have created a sys-apps/portage-9999 ebuild [2] for people
20 who would like to test features not released in mainline portage yet.
21
22 [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/4205/focus=4217
23 [2] https://github.com/zmedico/portage-binpkg-support-overlay
24 --
25 Thanks,
26 Zac

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Things one could be upset about Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o>