| 1 |
On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 05:38:02PM +0100, Johannes Fahrenkrug wrote: |
| 2 |
> Paul Varner wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> >Instead of hardcoding the nice value, use PORTAGE_NICENESS. Here is how |
| 6 |
> >it is done in revdep-rebuild |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> ># Obey PORTAGE_NICENESS |
| 9 |
> >PORTAGE_NICENESS=$(portageq envvar PORTAGE_NICENESS) |
| 10 |
> >[ ! -z "$PORTAGE_NICENESS" ] && renice $PORTAGE_NICENESS $$ > /dev/null |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> Good point. Is this patch better? Or should it rather be _exactly_ as it |
| 15 |
> is in revdep-rebuild? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I'd suggest raiding from emerge-delta-webrsync for the portageq call; |
| 18 |
it's a bit nasty, but it's a single call rather then multiple. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I'd also raid the tarsync call- this is something I was intending on |
| 21 |
doing but have't yet. It will cut out the untarring/rsyncing call to |
| 22 |
2 read throughs of the tarball, and single run through the tree. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Fair bit faster, especially if the user's box doesn't have the ram to |
| 25 |
buffer the tree/tarball in memory. Tagging portage_niceness into it, |
| 26 |
just create a var with the appropriate nice call- if no |
| 27 |
PORTAGE_NICENESS, then the var is empty. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
~harring |
Archives