| 1 |
On 7/7/06, Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 3 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Lord Sauron wrote: |
| 6 |
> > On 7/7/06, Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > Yeah. Portage works, however, I think it's really in need of a large |
| 8 |
> > overhaul. If what you're saying is true, and it's really just a load |
| 9 |
> > of scripts, then I really would HIGHLY suggest that you consider |
| 10 |
> > beginning to make smaller helper applications in C and stuff to speed |
| 11 |
> > things up. Right now it does have one thing that I have to say is |
| 12 |
> > better than Debian... once you get used to it: package masking. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I understand that users are frustrated by a perceived lack of performance. However, even though portage performance is far from optimal in many cases, I'm quite satisfied with it's performance levels in most of the ways that I use it. Surely there's lots of room for improvement, but it's difficult to justify spending time on some types of performance enhancements when there are already plenty of things that are completely broken and in need of fixing. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Yup. I'm not trying to flame the portage people, just point out that |
| 17 |
it's not working as well as I know it can. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
For you it might be fine, however, I'm trying to rough it out on a |
| 20 |
tiny little IBM X40, which is nitorious for being slow. I'm right now |
| 21 |
trying to find my way into a dual-core turion, and it's looking like I |
| 22 |
will be able to, but for now I'm stuck, like it or not. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Whether or not you/they fix portage isn't my problem, but it won't be |
| 25 |
because I didn't say that it couldn't use some work. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> > That is something that is really quite nifty that debian lacks, but I |
| 28 |
> > wouldn't say is a killer app. I'll be on Gentoo for one reason only: |
| 29 |
> > I'm obcessed with learning more about Linux, no matter how much |
| 30 |
> > trouble that means I have to get myself into ; ) |
| 31 |
> > |
| 32 |
> > Perhaps if I ever become good enough at Linux and programming I'll |
| 33 |
> > feel brave enough to try and help with the Portage problem... It's |
| 34 |
> > definitely a idea I'm beginning to entertain. I may just start |
| 35 |
> > looking through the sources. Who knows? With what limited skill I |
| 36 |
> > have I may be able to cook up some of those helper applications to |
| 37 |
> > speed things up! |
| 38 |
> > |
| 39 |
> > Scripts are great, but they aren't for whole applications. Yes, that |
| 40 |
> > would be a quotable. |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> Well, I'm not interested in debating whether or not a particular language is suitable for a particular type of application development. If you don't like Python, there is a package manager named Paludis that is implemented in C++ and is compatible with Portage in some ways. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
It's not unusable bad, and I have nothing *against* Python. I just |
| 45 |
don't know it as well as I do things like PHP, C, C++, C# (yes, I do |
| 46 |
have a MSDN Membership) and other things. That's all. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
I was really referring to things like bash and tcsh. They shouldn't |
| 49 |
be used for whole applications. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
-- |
| 52 |
========== GCv3.12 ========== |
| 53 |
GCS d-(++) s+: a? C++ UL+>++++ P+ |
| 54 |
L++ E--- W+(+++) N++ o? K? w--- O? M+ |
| 55 |
V? PS- PE+ Y-(--) PGP- t+++ 5? X R tv-- b+ |
| 56 |
DI+++ D+ G e* h- !r !y |
| 57 |
========= END GCv3.12 ======== |
| 58 |
-- |
| 59 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives