Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o, cloos@×××××××.com
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage 9999 at commit 2d5e38b495776e5bb2266848a3365667f3ca7233 **SLOW**
Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 21:15:45
Message-Id: 518185F7.90900@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage 9999 at commit 2d5e38b495776e5bb2266848a3365667f3ca7233 **SLOW** by James Cloos
1 On 05/01/2013 01:56 PM, James Cloos wrote:
2 >>>>>> "ZM" == Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> writes:
3 >
4 > ZM> On 04/30/2013 11:19 PM, James Cloos wrote:
5 >>> My typical emerge -upvDN world went up from 10s of minutes to several
6 >>> hours sometime between portage 37f33e9 and 2d5e38b.
7 >
8 > ZM> I don't see any regressions on my end. Please feel free to bisect those
9 > ZM> commits and isolate it to a particular one. :)
10 >
11 > Before trying that, I tried reverting 62dbcaa4d873784f1 and that worked.
12
13 That commit allows backtracking to continue in the event that unsolved
14 blockers are encountered, solving this bug:
15
16 https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=465638
17
18 That means that emerge may spend some more time backtracking in some
19 cases involving blockers, even though the backtracking may not
20 ultimately lead to a useful solution.
21
22 Did your test case involve blockers? Are you using the --backtrack
23 option to increase the amount of backtracking that is allowed?
24 --
25 Thanks,
26 Zac

Replies