On Friday 18 February 2005 21:58, kang wrote: > J�rgen H�tzel wrote: > >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"? > > I think find and locate example isn't exactly the same. > 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)
You're right about the integration thing. Portage is not the best it can be at the moment. At a rough estimate, emerge -s could be gotten to about 10% of what it is at the moment without migrating to C at all. It'll come. Just be patient or, even better, help out mapping a plan to get from A to B. :) Regards, Jason Stubbs -- [email protected] mailing list
