| 1 |
On Sunday 07 November 2004 23:53, George Shapovalov wrote: |
| 2 |
> By what, 1% or less? (according to what I remember portage devs were saying |
| 3 |
> 90% of the time is spent in bash anyway). |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
This was an assumption, based on the fact that you can expect all |
| 6 |
subdirectories of categories to be package directories right now. When you |
| 7 |
write a tool supporting _arbitrary_ depths you'd need to walk down the tree |
| 8 |
and check for e.g. Manifest files all the time. I'm not familiar with the |
| 9 |
Portage code, so someone else is welcome to give an exhausting answer. Also I |
| 10 |
put portage caching aside, just would like to see a version that _really_ |
| 11 |
works. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I general I don't think that arbitrary depths lower the complexity to find a |
| 14 |
specific package. Most likely it will raises the complexity of the Portage |
| 15 |
code quite a bit, though. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Carsten |
Archives