| 1 |
On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 02:09:12 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 00:24:10 +0200 |
| 5 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > William, I'm not sure if you're aware of how package managers work |
| 7 |
> > but checking reverse dependencies of a package takes significant |
| 8 |
> > amount of time. Changing -C to do that would be a serious |
| 9 |
> > performance regression. Which would result in users requesting yet |
| 10 |
> > another option to disable this. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Eh, that's a Portage performance problem, not a package manager |
| 13 |
> performance problem. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I do recall years ago paludis being much faster, and providing more |
| 16 |
detailed information on package slots, archs, etc. In a graph like |
| 17 |
output if I recall. It was super useful in package maintenance. It |
| 18 |
really helped with cleaning things safely! |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Last I checked in out ~year or so, It was just to difficult to get to |
| 21 |
work with portage. Paludis has changed considerably. Seems you need to |
| 22 |
change a system to work with it. Not as use along side of portage as it |
| 23 |
was in the past. It would be nice to be able to compare it side by side |
| 24 |
to portage. Though I know it has some different features. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Need to check out pkgcore. Though I am not the one complaining about |
| 27 |
time. Just saying for those who are... |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
Archives