| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 14:03 -0800, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 6 |
>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 06:05:21PM +0200, Amit Dor-Shifer wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> Given the following: |
| 8 |
>>> # qlist -Iv sys-apps/portage |
| 9 |
>>> sys-apps/portage-2.1.4.5 |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>> How do I safely extract the "2.1.4.5"? |
| 12 |
>>> |
| 13 |
>>> (I don't necessarily need to use qlist. Just want to get the version of an |
| 14 |
>>> installed package within a bash script) |
| 15 |
>> This *really* should be folded into portageq offhand- it's the initial |
| 16 |
>> step towards shifting versionator logic (yet another standalone |
| 17 |
>> parser/comparison implementation) into the PM. |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> Counter arguements? |
| 20 |
>> ~brian |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Yes. he said a bash script. portageq still takes a few seconds to load |
| 23 |
> and invokes far far to many instructions for very simple info. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> The 3 execve's I just posted are still faster than one portageq call. |
| 26 |
> So.. foo.c wins again. :p |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Well, I think portageq will be fine if it's limited to a small |
| 29 |
number of calls. Here's a simple test, with portage-2.2_rc16: |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
# time python -c "import portage.versions" |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
real 0m0.141s |
| 34 |
user 0m0.124s |
| 35 |
sys 0m0.016s |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
It's not so bad if it only has to be called a few times. For cases |
| 38 |
where a large number need to be split, they could be processed in a |
| 39 |
batch by a single portageq call, by either passing all the inputs in |
| 40 |
as arguments or writing them to stdin. |
| 41 |
- -- |
| 42 |
Thanks, |
| 43 |
Zac |
| 44 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 45 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkks1oQACgkQ/ejvha5XGaM/fgCfQwG2gD0viF5qjcN0WBewlCxi |
| 48 |
08sAoKBZYQy3Ttkb4KhFIChPVsbFjpQR |
| 49 |
=fc1x |
| 50 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives