| 1 |
On Saturday 06 December 2003 20:35, Daniel Robbins wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 2003-12-06 at 07:26, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 3 |
> > We need indeed a highlevel abstraction, and dep trackers are one of the |
| 4 |
> > modules. I think that access to the package tree is another, where |
| 5 |
> > caching can be modular too. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> If by "caching" you mean the metadata cache, this is something I want to |
| 8 |
> eliminate in portage-ng. I would like things to be designed to be fast |
| 9 |
> from the start, with no slow bash<->python linkage like there is in the |
| 10 |
> current portage that makes us require a metadata cache for decent |
| 11 |
> performance. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
What I mean with caching here is a module that maskerades as a tree |
| 14 |
representation, but actually is a cache that gets it's data from another |
| 15 |
"real" tree representation (be that installed, available ebuilds, or |
| 16 |
binaries). This cache module would in someway speed up the retrieval of the |
| 17 |
data from the cache. Possibly by a binary database or whatever means (I don't |
| 18 |
care). The thing I care about is that it should be optional, and there should |
| 19 |
be a caching module that minimizes memory use. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> It should be possible to get portage-ng without caching running as fast |
| 22 |
> as portage does now when it has a fully up-to-date cache. Then if we |
| 23 |
> need more performance, portage-ng's datastore can be moved to a |
| 24 |
> database, or we can add an enhanced caching mode to make it even faster. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
That would be cool. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> For backwards compatibility with existing ebuilds, yes we will probably |
| 29 |
> still need the metadata cache since we'll still have some kind of bash |
| 30 |
> linkage. It's important to point out that the design of portage-ng will |
| 31 |
> not be tied to ebuilds. Ebuilds will likely become "legacy" build |
| 32 |
> scripts that are superceded by something a lot better, cleaner, powerful |
| 33 |
> and also faster for portage-ng. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
While I see the value of keeping ebuilds I agree that ebuilds have serious |
| 36 |
upward compatibility problems, so we might get a new format. (Also parseable |
| 37 |
without bash, and a way to add more complex dependency formats without |
| 38 |
breaking old scripts). |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Paul |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 44 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 45 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 46 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives