| 1 |
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:10:51 -0400 Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
| Every single year quarter after quarter the more updates |
| 3 |
| that happen the slower portage is becoming. |
| 4 |
| Care to solve that? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
This is a minute amount of time in comparison to anything significant. |
| 7 |
If you care about Portage speed, you'd be far better off reducing the |
| 8 |
number of packages that users have installed and reducing the number of |
| 9 |
packages in the tree. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
| My fix would be to remove the ability to do package moves |
| 12 |
| from portage all together. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Which makes me rather glad that you're not fixing anything... |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
| |
| 17 |
| > i dont think this sort of thing should hold up tree |
| 18 |
| > shuffles ... |
| 19 |
| |
| 20 |
| Well it should. |
| 21 |
| |
| 22 |
| package.keywords package.use package.mask etc.. |
| 23 |
| |
| 24 |
| Where is the stability and consistency when we end up |
| 25 |
| forcing people to update /etc/portage files... |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Erm... Portage updates these automatically. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 31 |
Mail : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives