1 |
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 08:04:04PM +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote: |
2 |
> maillog: 10/05/2005-11:28:21(+0200): Martin Schlemmer types |
3 |
> > On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 13:07 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote: |
4 |
> > > Georgi Georgiev wrote: [Sun May 08 2005, 08:19:20PM EDT] |
5 |
> > > > Would it be inappropriate to start bitching (again) about a flat |
6 |
> > > > tree where each package can go in multiple categories? |
7 |
> > > |
8 |
> > > That's something I'd love to see eventually... I mean the flat tree, |
9 |
> > > not the complaining ;-) |
10 |
> > > |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > Problem with flat tree, is the search times might then suck even more, |
13 |
> > as last I heard, too many dirs/files in one directory have a huge speed |
14 |
> > penalty. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> The flat tree does not imply a flat hierarchy on disk. Files and |
17 |
> directories can still be organized in a more optimized manner. For |
18 |
> example -- put each package in a directory of its first letter. Maybe |
19 |
> even two letters if you think that the winner 'g' with 736 packages is |
20 |
> too many. |
21 |
This would basically require a totally seperate rsync module for newer |
22 |
portage versions that would handle it. Or portage would have to |
23 |
support both, which (frankly) is something of a no go; it's too |
24 |
fricking ugly imo. |
25 |
|
26 |
Beyond that, drop the optimized manner in reference to speed; |
27 |
addressed below. Optimized for human readability? not so sure, |
28 |
digging through debian's directory structure to dig out certain files |
29 |
has always drove me slightly insane while doing so... |
30 |
|
31 |
|
32 |
> This is only true when the portage tree is stored on a filesystem. I |
33 |
> recall some effort being made in making portage support reading the |
34 |
> portage tree from a zipfile, so we may eventually see some other |
35 |
> backends that would not suffer from this problem. |
36 |
Down the line, viable (should be able to basically go nuts in terms of |
37 |
how you store the tree, locally, remotely, etc). Now? eh, tiz a ways |
38 |
off. |
39 |
|
40 |
Regarding speed comments about look up in the tree, frankly it's a bit |
41 |
minor imo. Initial installed package scan is a heavier hit (it's |
42 |
required for even an emerge --help). The bits in this thread about |
43 |
using xyz fs for the tree are trying to address the effects, not the |
44 |
cause of potentially slow cp_list/cp_all lookups; if the tree were |
45 |
marked as frozen (non-modifiable, iow users don't modify an ebuild |
46 |
here and there), and portage had frozen support (working on it), you |
47 |
could work directly from the cache instead, which would be a bit |
48 |
faster (at the very least, less syscalls, (open|close|read)dir, |
49 |
stat'ing, etc). |
50 |
|
51 |
The speed portion of the arg in other words, I don't think is valid. |
52 |
Better to focus on what benefits the poor human who has to go digging |
53 |
through the tree manually, then try to make portage go faster via it |
54 |
w/ dir structuring/underlying fs. |
55 |
|
56 |
Re: having a package claimed by multiple categories... eh. yeah, |
57 |
that's a bit valid although I'd think it's either A) an indiciation |
58 |
our categories need to be adjusted a bit, or B) (hopefully) a rare |
59 |
case. :) |
60 |
|
61 |
My 2 cents, at least. |
62 |
~Brian |
63 |
-- |
64 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |