On Thursday 28 May 2009 20:04:18 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 28 May 2009 18:56:00 +0100 > > Roy Bamford <neddyseag...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > As I understand this, it may add six seconds to an emerge world while > > the dep tree is calculated. Lets say it takes an hour to do emerge > > world, the time has increased from 3600 seconds to 3606 seconds or a > > trivial 0.1666667% > > Interactive time is important. If it were adding those extra seconds to > the build, no-one would care. But it's not. It's adding them to when > the user's sitting at the screen waiting for results.
So how about we improve the structure instead of trying to patch up some hotspots? For example a readonly repository would guarantee that the cache is always consistent. Then you can add some smart indexes, and suddenly you're no longer limited by IO but by CPU. Last time I saw someone try the raw metadata for all ebuilds was smaller than 5MB, which can be read by a modern harddisk in under half a second - doesn't that sound quite motivating? > > You mean 0.3% (or less) of the emerge world time? > > No, he means 50% of pretend time when you're sitting there waiting to > see what's going to happen. So fix the diseases instead of doctoring around some symptoms ... > > I am against *all* and any metadata in the filename. Today, GLEP 55 > > proposes the add the EAIP, tomorrow, there will be something else, > > the day after another thing ... and all because allowing EAPI set the > > precedent. > > No there won't be. There is no slippery slope. And there's no intention of building a wall ;) > Also, PV and PN are already in the filename. That is needed to keep the filename reasonably unique. If you know of a nicer way to uniqueify it feel free to tell us ... > > > You also make the error of assuming that with eapi-in-ebuild the > > currently suggested approaches to extracting the EAPI from the ebuild > > are the best and remain unchanged. Thats unlikely, as not a lot of > > work has been done it yet. > > It is the best. If we're requiring EAPI before trying to parse PV, all > the EAPIs have to be known to do any ordering. ... and why the [censored] would we want that then? I mean, seriously. That is a circular argument. It also ignores everything said by Roy, denying even the possibility of an alternative. Last time I saw that style of argumentation was in a documentary that showed how darwinism couldn't be right (and still those people believe in the flu. Ha.) It would help if you would tolerate other opinions (or even the possibility that other people may have opinions that do not agree with you). Roy, as an experienced engineer and as far as I know project manager, might have a good idea or two about how to make things not blow up, and it might be in our best interest to listen to him for a minute or two.
