| 1 |
On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 17:10 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:10:51 -0400 Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> | Every single year quarter after quarter the more updates |
| 4 |
> | that happen the slower portage is becoming. |
| 5 |
> | Care to solve that? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> This is a minute amount of time in comparison to anything significant. |
| 8 |
> If you care about Portage speed, you'd be far better off reducing the |
| 9 |
> number of packages that users have installed and reducing the number of |
| 10 |
> packages in the tree. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> | My fix would be to remove the ability to do package moves |
| 13 |
> | from portage all together. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Which makes me rather glad that you're not fixing anything... |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> | |
| 18 |
> | > i dont think this sort of thing should hold up tree |
| 19 |
> | > shuffles ... |
| 20 |
> | |
| 21 |
> | Well it should. |
| 22 |
> | |
| 23 |
> | package.keywords package.use package.mask etc.. |
| 24 |
> | |
| 25 |
> | Where is the stability and consistency when we end up |
| 26 |
> | forcing people to update /etc/portage files... |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Erm... Portage updates these automatically. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
as .cfg_** files. The end user still has to run an etc-update and |
| 31 |
pray that it was not a file he/she had in masking. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
None the less I think you missed the part in the tread along time ago |
| 34 |
which Stefan said he would do the moves at the same time as bumps. |
| 35 |
Doing it that way solves most of the problems. Granted not all of |
| 36 |
them like the vdb/*DEPEND entries of other pkgs. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |
| 41 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives