| 1 |
On Thursday 14 May 2009 21:20:18 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 14 May 2009 13:17:24 -0600 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> RB <aoz.syn@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 13:11, Ciaran McCreesh |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 8 |
> > > Please explain why you claimed GLEP 55 makes things slower. Until |
| 9 |
> > > you answer that, it's hard to take you for anything other than a |
| 10 |
> > > troll. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Hell, I'll explain. Read paragraph 8 again. Slowly. Read it a |
| 13 |
> > second time, since you obviously didn't read the first time. The |
| 14 |
> > paragraph makes the point that the pro-GLEP55 stance says that |
| 15 |
> > encoding EAPI inside the file is slower. It is not saying GLEP55 is |
| 16 |
> > slower, it is attempting to debunk the theory that it is faster. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> "so with glep55 caching it is actually slower!" |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> There's no possible way that can make sense. Whatever he's claiming by |
| 21 |
> that is obviously nonsense. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Ah. I was not precise enough. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Let me rephrase it in less ambiguous terms then - |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
"Having EAPI in the ebuild is slower than having it encoded in the filename" |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Counterpoint: No, you use caching if it is that darn slow |
| 32 |
Bonus: GLEP55 makes caching that slower than accessing it directly |
| 33 |
Extra bonus: about a dozen emails going around in circles over a careless |
| 34 |
formulation that gets misinterpreted into "The iraqis have weapons of mass |
| 35 |
destruction!" |
Archives