| 1 |
Am 23.05.2020 um 23:46 schrieb Daniel Pielmeier: |
| 2 |
> Hm correct me if I am wrong, but from looking at the patch Zac provided |
| 3 |
> I think he meant that the time portage consumes is only one second while |
| 4 |
> the "rest" is 3.2 seconds. So there is probably a potential in improving |
| 5 |
> the "rest" somehow. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Yes and no. The difference between the python and bash version is |
| 8 |
roughly 2 seconds. One second for importing portage (which Zac patched |
| 9 |
away) and another second for the rest of the portage stuff. So using the |
| 10 |
portage API adds two additional seconds. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
The python version needs 3.2 seconds on my system. As said the portage |
| 13 |
API (or better calling the portage API) consumes ~2 seconds. As this is |
| 14 |
the most time intense part the question is if there is a way to optimize |
| 15 |
this. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Hope this is more clearly. I had fun anyway :) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
regards |
| 20 |
Daniel |
Archives