| 1 |
On Jan 28, 2014 5:57 AM, "Neil Bothwick" <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:54:28 +0100, hasufell wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > >> If it's about performance (in the sense of speed), then paludis |
| 6 |
> > >> is worse, because dependency calculation is more complex/complete |
| 7 |
> > >> there. |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > That makes no sense at all. Paludis is written in a different |
| 10 |
> > > language using different algorithms. It's not about the amount of |
| 11 |
> > > work it does so much as how efficiently it does it. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> > That's exactly what I was saying. I was talking about speed, not |
| 14 |
> > efficiency. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> But the efficiency of the algorithm, and the language, affects the speed. |
| 17 |
> You can't presume "it does more, therefore it takes longer" if the two |
| 18 |
> programs do things in very different ways. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I was thinking: is it feasible, to "precalculate" the dependency tree? Or, |
| 22 |
at least "preprocess" all the sane (and insane) dependencies to help |
| 23 |
portage? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Rgds, |
| 26 |
-- |
Archives