J?rgen H?tzel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) scribbled: > On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 01:30:58PM +0100, Simon Stelling wrote: > > > > >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. :) > 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"?
That's not really a valid comparison. 'find' and 'locate' work on files. The files on the system change at the least every hour. The portage db should only change once a day (according to rsync ettiquette :) ). So where the 'locate' db will get out of sync with what is really on the system, the 'eix' db is never out of sync cause it gets synced right after the portage db (at least, that's the way my cron is set up). So why not merge them together? Just my 2cents. Cooper. -- [email protected] mailing list
