On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 05:38:02PM +0100, Johannes Fahrenkrug wrote: > Paul Varner wrote: > > > > >Instead of hardcoding the nice value, use PORTAGE_NICENESS. Here is how > >it is done in revdep-rebuild > > > ># Obey PORTAGE_NICENESS > >PORTAGE_NICENESS=$(portageq envvar PORTAGE_NICENESS) > >[ ! -z "$PORTAGE_NICENESS" ] && renice $PORTAGE_NICENESS $$ > /dev/null > > > > > > > Good point. Is this patch better? Or should it rather be _exactly_ as it > is in revdep-rebuild?
I'd suggest raiding from emerge-delta-webrsync for the portageq call; it's a bit nasty, but it's a single call rather then multiple. I'd also raid the tarsync call- this is something I was intending on doing but have't yet. It will cut out the untarring/rsyncing call to 2 read throughs of the tarball, and single run through the tree. Fair bit faster, especially if the user's box doesn't have the ram to buffer the tree/tarball in memory. Tagging portage_niceness into it, just create a var with the appropriate nice call- if no PORTAGE_NICENESS, then the var is empty. ~harring
pgpNUrhTiBo25.pgp
Description: PGP signature
