On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 04:18:22PM -0800, Ned Ludd wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 14:03 -0800, Brian Harring wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 06:05:21PM +0200, Amit Dor-Shifer wrote: > > > Given the following: > > > # qlist -Iv sys-apps/portage > > > sys-apps/portage-2.1.4.5 > > > > > > How do I safely extract the "2.1.4.5"? > > > > > > (I don't necessarily need to use qlist. Just want to get the version of > > > an > > > installed package within a bash script) > > > > This *really* should be folded into portageq offhand- it's the initial > > step towards shifting versionator logic (yet another standalone > > parser/comparison implementation) into the PM. > > > > Counter arguements? > > ~brian > > Yes. he said a bash script. portageq still takes a few seconds to load > and invokes far far to many instructions for very simple info. > > The 3 execve's I just posted are still faster than one portageq call. > So.. foo.c wins again. :p
Curious, does qatom handle use deps? Slot deps? Plans to add repository deps (admittedly they've not landed)? The point of shifting it into portageq isn't speed based; it's to transfer responsibility for atom parsing from multiple authorities into a single one. Besides, just because portageq is slow for heavy data ops doesn't mean it's going to be slow for doing simple atom splitting. Quick test locally, cold cache pegs it at 3s- with minor use of snakeoil demandload that's likely halvable. ~brian
pgp3mI8uOPTxQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
