On Fri, 26 Dec 2008, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 19:24:05 +0100
Markus Leuthold <[email protected]> wrote:
You miss lots. If you want the functionality update-eix provides
(which you probably don't -- learn to use paludis -q and
inquisitio), write your own hook code for it.
I just tried it out: "eix kdelibs" vs "paludis -q kdelibs". They
provide the same information, even with overlays. eix "flight
simulator" vs inquisito "flight simulator". Again the same result
(apart from inquisito taking 1min50 and eix 1sec for the result)
inquisitio probably only takes that long because you don't have cache
generated for overlays. If you do have cache generated, inquisitio
should take less than a minute. A lot less, on modern hardware.
I just tried the same search myself.
inquisitio -s "flight simulator" 124.14s user 69.10s system 86% cpu 3:42.88
total
inquisitio -s "flight simulator" 19.64s user 3.22s system 96% cpu 23.670 total
inquisitio -s "flight simulator" 19.42s user 2.98s system 96% cpu 23.324 total
eix -S "flight simulator" 0.07s user 0.00s system 97% cpu 0.072 total
eix -S "flight simulator" 0.06s user 0.00s system 85% cpu 0.070 total
eix -S "flight simulator" 0.05s user 0.02s system 100% cpu 0.066 total
It appears the first time I call 'inquisitio' it builds its cache. So,
that one's offset by the cost of running the update-eix hook.
'eix' doesn't properly handle my paludis configuration, as far as
use/keyword/mask stuff is concerned. But, I generally use it (as in that
sample search) to get a quick overview of what's available.
As with everything, pros and cons. And I generally prefer paludis's
"correct is better than easy" approach. But, given the purpose ("quick
overview" rather than "meticulously correct package manager search") is
there any particular reason I should wait 23 seconds for 'inquisitio'
rather than the instantaneous return from 'eix'?
Or have I missed some more useful form of caching?
Seriously, if you aren't going to pay attention when we tell you
something's utterly broken, you shouldn't be using Paludis at all.
I take your warning seriously, but it's enough to warn ONCE, eg when
you install someting from the erroneous overlay.
The warning's there because it's demonstrably not been enough to do
otherwise. And if we find out the warning isn't strong enough, we'll
have to up it even further.
Can anyone provide or point me to an explanation of problems with
paludis-extras? I saw a month ago the thread that basically went:
User: Something's broken. I'm using paludis-extras. What's wrong?
Ciaran: You're using paludis-extras.
Someone else stepped in and referred to the p-e thread in the Gentoo
forums. But, I didn't see anything there aside from what seemed to be
typical support/minor problem messages. And some googling didn't get me
much further.
Why is paludis-extras "utterly broken"?
Best,
Ben
_______________________________________________
paludis-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.pioto.org/mailman/listinfo/paludis-user
