1 |
On Friday 29 April 2005 22:29, Jason Wever wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Athul Acharya wrote: |
3 |
> >> Purging old versions for a few seconds speed increase in portage [snip] |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> > Few seconds? Try few miliseconds, if anything, at all, ever. The |
6 |
> > original email in this thread gave me the best laugh I've had in a |
7 |
> > while, until I realized it came from a dev; then I was very sad. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Please don't assume everyone is running your latest and greatest PC |
10 |
> hardware, or processors that measure in the GHz, regardless of |
11 |
> architecture. We have officially supported architectures where a few |
12 |
> seconds may be a generous statement of the delay (low end SPARC64 systems |
13 |
> for instance). The initialization delay of portage is very much felt |
14 |
> here, either via emerge or other tools like equery. |
15 |
|
16 |
The initialization time of portage is directly related to the number of |
17 |
packages installed. Cutting out excess ebuilds from the tree won't speed this |
18 |
up at all. Cutting out excess ebuilds won't have much effect on the general |
19 |
running of emerge at all, actually, except for updating the cache after |
20 |
syncing. |
21 |
|
22 |
Regards, |
23 |
Jason Stubbs |