Archives
Archives
| From: | Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-dev@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Native vs Scripting language for portage speed concerns was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds | ||
| Date: | Tue, 11 Jul 2017 01:24:06 | ||
| Message-Id: | 20170711022356.41e637ca@snowblower | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Native vs Scripting language for portage speed concerns was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds by Raymond Jennings |
||
| 1 | On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 18:14:23 -0700 |
| 2 | Raymond Jennings <shentino@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 | > If I may ask, does anyone have any profiling information one way or |
| 4 | > the other to shed light on the situation? |
| 5 | |
| 6 | Paludis does complete dependency and unused package tracking for |
| 7 | everything by default. Any performance difficulties are |
| 8 | implementation-related, not a fundamental problem. |
| 9 | |
| 10 | -- |
| 11 | Ciaran McCreesh |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-dev] Native vs Scripting language for portage speed concerns was -> Sets vs Meta ebuilds | "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> |