Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New category proposal
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 03:30:31
Message-Id: 20050511033055.GC16717@exodus.wit.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New category proposal by Georgi Georgiev
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

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New category proposal Georgi Georgiev <chutz@×××.net>