| 1 |
On Monday 17 December 2007 14:38:30 Raphael wrote: |
| 2 |
> So, even if Portage was recoded in C++, performance improvements |
| 3 |
> would be marginal and the cost in man-hours would be too high. It |
| 4 |
> would take months before reaching the maturity level Portage has now |
| 5 |
> and all this time could be better spent trying to find solutions to |
| 6 |
> its architectural bottlenecks. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I believe that a good solution would be evolving Portage to use |
| 9 |
> different forms of storage, like databases or even LDAP. In a home |
| 10 |
> desktop, you could use SQLite, which is light weight. In a Office |
| 11 |
> enviroment, you could use a larger database, like MySQL or PostgreSQL. |
| 12 |
> In this second case, it would even make sharing the package list |
| 13 |
> faster, since the only current method is sharing it over NFS. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I understand that doing so could bloat Portage dependencies, but |
| 16 |
> it is, IMHO, a good way to improve its speed. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
This post is hilarious for several reasons. Firstly there already exist a |
| 19 |
package manager for Gentoo which is written in C++. Paludis. And it has a lot |
| 20 |
of features that Portage has been missing for five years. And it's way more |
| 21 |
flexible than Portage. Secondly if you just put ebuilds in a database you |
| 22 |
gain nothing. I.e. other than the added bloat. I/O is still going to be the |
| 23 |
major bottleneck. :P |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Bo Andresen |
Archives