Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "C. Bergström" <cbergstrom@×××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: Fabio Erculiani <lxnay@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [OT] pkgcore bikeshed (was Portage team)
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:40:46
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [OT] pkgcore bikeshed (was Portage team) by Fabio Erculiani
1 On 01/13/14 04:31 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
2 > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:15 AM, "C. Bergström"
3 > <cbergstrom@×××××××××.com> wrote:
4 >> On 01/13/14 03:43 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
5 >> Where I work uses pkgcore[1], but not the areas which are generally
6 >> beneficial to the whole community. (We use it as part of a web application
7 >> to handle testsuites which have build dependencies.) We can blah blah about
8 >> performance of resolving package dependencies all day long,
9 >> [...]
10 > Not sure about what you mean with "blah blah". But given the amount of
11 > both disk caches (metadata, vdb cache) and memory caches (the
12 > in-memory aux_db cache that portage loads using pickle (it's a dict)
13 > takes like 70-100Mb of RAM on an average desktop system), Portage can
14 > still take *minutes* to calculate the merge queue of a pkg with all
15 > its deps satisfied. Ironically, launching the same emerge command
16 > twice, will take more or less the same time.
17 > Yeah, this is probably bad design...
18 ack - I know the benefits (and downsides) of pkgcore compared to
19 portage, but I leave that up to others who would like to voice their
20 opinion. It would be great to get pkgcore up to feature parity with
21 portage, but I don't have the resources to help with that. (In the
22 future, possibly next month, I will try to put some bounties)