J�rgen H�tzel wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 01:30:58PM +0100, Simon Stelling wrote:I think find and locate example isn't exactly the same.
Well "emerge search" and "eix -s" can be compared like "find" to "locate". It's a nice option. But would you integrate "locate" in "find"?It will maybe sound stupid, but cannot such code be integrated in portage ?Why should it? I like both methods, the cached and the non-cached one, because both have their (dis)advantages. eix isn't big, it's easy to use, so everything should stay like it is, IMHO. :)
This said, I would sure like to have locate speed in find ;)
(Try a search on a HFS(+) filesystem using the Apple API for instance, it uses a db but its updates by the fs itself. Its as fast as locate but no db refreshing needed)
In portage, portage updates a cache after each synchronisation. What is this cache for if it cannot speed up searches ;)
(I should be saying something stupid about cache, so don't blame me;p)
-- [email protected] mailing list
