| 1 |
Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 4/22/20 11:22 AM, Caveman Al Toraboran wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 11:01 PM, Consus <consus@××××.net> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>>> Yeah, mgorny likes to do some provocative stuff like forking Portage. |
| 6 |
>> patching P*****E is heretic, and forking it is |
| 7 |
>> outright blasphemous. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
> For everyone complaining about how long emerge @world takes, and about |
| 10 |
> the incomprehensible error messages -- this fork was a step towards |
| 11 |
> fixing that. Portage does some slow, unpredictable, undocumented magic |
| 12 |
> when resolving dependencies that it never should have done in the first |
| 13 |
> place. Developers using portage then make commits that appear to work |
| 14 |
> with portage, but won't work in any other PMS-compliant package manager, |
| 15 |
> and often don't work in portage itself when given slightly different |
| 16 |
> command-line options. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Portage was forked because the current maintainers insist on leaving it |
| 19 |
> broken to "avoid the phone calls." There are still problems, but this |
| 20 |
> way people don't realize they're portage's fault. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Some may recall my thread about emerge only using one core when doing |
| 26 |
it's build list. As was discussed in that thread, it would be really |
| 27 |
difficult to build that list in pretty much any language because it just |
| 28 |
isn't set up to do that, the tree itself it seems. While I'd like |
| 29 |
emerge to be able to use more than one core, it may be faster but it |
| 30 |
might also fall more often to which would waste more time than using |
| 31 |
multiple cores would save. In other words, a lot of work with little or |
| 32 |
no benefit. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Didn't Firefox do this a couple years ago? Start basically from scratch |
| 35 |
and start over with new code? I seem to recall them doing that so it |
| 36 |
could use more than one core and other things. It lead to all the |
| 37 |
add-ons being redone as well. I recall a lot of fussing about that. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
While it would be nice, could it even be done? Would it be easier to |
| 40 |
just start over with a new tree, new emerge/portage commands and all? |
| 41 |
Bigger question, who's the person with idiot stamped on their forehead |
| 42 |
that would be willing to do all that without knowing it would even |
| 43 |
work? ROFL |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
These Gentoo dead threads get interesting pretty fast. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Dale |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
:-) :-) |
Archives