| 1 |
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:16:39 -0500, Jerry McBride wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> "Portage deficency"? You mean the fact that python scans some thousands of |
| 4 |
> files in the file based database, writing as it goes? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>> and that the real cache is centrally generated, right? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Yup, from thousands of files in the file based database... |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Portage is a wonderful tool for package management, but the sheer size of |
| 11 |
> the beast begs for movig it to C and a proper database. I remember in the |
| 12 |
> early days of my gentoo experience that portage wasn't a bother. But as |
| 13 |
> ebuilds are added to portage and my choice of installed ebuilds grows... |
| 14 |
> portage has become quite a slug performance wise. I guess this is where |
| 15 |
> the IT types step in and say it scales poorly. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Cheers all and Happy New Year to everyone. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Jerry |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108412 |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
It _does_ suck, but looks like it will get better. I'm still going to keep |
| 25 |
portage on a separate partition. After all, I went through all the trouble! |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives