Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Igor <lanthruster@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage QOS
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 12:23:23
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage QOS by
1 Hello Heroxbd,
3 Friday, January 10, 2014, 4:16:47 AM, you wrote:
5 >> The ebuilds have approximately the same time to install, the failure
6 >> rate is about the same, emerge is getting slower.
8 > I am curious about the slowness of emerge.
10 > How about profile the portage and rewrite the time-crucial part in
11 > C/C++, or ideally, borrowing the counterpart from paludis? How feasible
12 > is that?
14 > I guess the dep-tree calculation is the slowest part.
16 If you had the PortageQOS you would see what change slowed down
17 Portage. And the problem could have already been fixed.
18 You could make fast and correct decisions. True, it could be possible
19 that some parts of the portage need to be rewritten. May be Python was
20 the wrong decision, may be it's better to use C++.
22 (Yes, I expect to be
23 condemned over here before I'm banned, a sacrifice for the better Gentoo
24 somebody had to make).
26 Do you remember how many problems portage had with Python? It's like
27 Gentoo is for Python not for anything else.
29 Why not to get rid of Python at all. What is so great in Python that
30 Gentoo exists for the sake of it?
32 And when next thing is introduced - you can see how it works
33 world wide.
35 On some older PC the new portage works for 4-6 minutes before it FAILS.
37 If the portage is going to be a little bit smarter again - you would need a
38 new hardware to run it.
40 And nobody cares, of course it's better to hide don't know or run from
41 problems than know about them and fix them.
43 300 devs, are NOT ABLE to make portage fast in 8 years.
45 --
46 Best regards,
47 Igor mailto:lanthruster@×××××.com


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage QOS "René Neumann" <lists@××××××.eu>