| 1 |
Lord Sauron wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 5/25/06, Thomas Kirchner <lists@××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> * On May 25 11:45, Lord Sauron (gentoo-user@l.g.o) wrote: |
| 4 |
>> > I've found (after much exploration) that there is a archive: |
| 5 |
>> > /portage-20060123.tar.bz2 |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
Much exploration? Forgive my amazement and please don't be *too* |
| 8 |
terribly offended by the rudeness of what I'm about to type, but... |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
you call `ls /` 'much exploration'?? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> That's curious. So I can delete this tarball then? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
Yes. In fact, someone should tell the Installer people that it should |
| 15 |
clean up after itself. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
>> > It takes about as long to start going as it does to open the archive |
| 18 |
>> > /portage-20060123.tar.bz2 - conincidence? I think not! |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> I think so ;) |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> If it's not, then I really need to ask why on earth portage takes so |
| 23 |
> long to just index and search packages that took apt-get much less |
| 24 |
> time to work with. I don't think it should be this slow. I'm not |
| 25 |
> even talking about compile-times - I know and expect those to be slow, |
| 26 |
> but just raw package searching and stuff is not that fast. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
The time is how long it takes for python to 'import portage'. |
| 30 |
Unfortunately that's a limitation of the portage code - that even minor |
| 31 |
metadata searches and such can't take place without a full 'import |
| 32 |
portage'. The import is a cached process, so the metadata only has to |
| 33 |
be loaded from disk once, and is quickly used from RAM each time thereafter. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
If speed when searching packages is an issue, try app-portage/eix or |
| 36 |
http://gentoo-portage.com. |
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives