On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:16:39 -0500 Jerry McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > Wrong solution. You do realise that the "updating Portage cache" | > thing is due to a Portage deficiency, | | "Portage deficency"? You mean the fact that python scans some | thousands of files in the file based database, writing as it goes?
Nope. The fact that Portage uses that second level of cache at all. | > and that the real cache is centrally generated, right? | | Yup, from thousands of files in the file based database... | | Portage is a wonderful tool for package management, but the sheer | size of the beast begs for movig it to C and a proper database. I | remember in the early days of my gentoo experience that portage | wasn't a bother. But as ebuilds are added to portage and my choice of | installed ebuilds grows... portage has become quite a slug | performance wise. I guess this is where the IT types step in and say | it scales poorly. The scalability issues have nothing to do with us using files. -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain) Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
