Shawn Walker wrote:
Peter Tribble wrote:
Pkg(5) is still under development. It's rather unreasonable to suggest
that the unoptimized performance today, in development builds no less,
will reflect the final performance of the product at release. We have
more features to add and more optimization to perform.
Pkg(5) has had considerable development effort expended on it. It's been
released in shipping product for over a year. SVR4 has been neglected and
left to rot.
Peter, that is not true as someone else recently pointed out (e.g.
'turbo' packaging fix to SVR4).
sort of, in that in the previous 10+ years only sustaining was done, no
actual improvements were delivered, there were some attempts that all
failed for one reason or another, only in the last year, as the code
moved to actual sustaining org has any attempt being made to improve
this, it was effectively abandoned up till that point. Massive pity, but
all water under the bridge now. We consider ourselves lucky that when
s10 shipped with zones, that the tools were just about capable of
patching/packaging systems with zones, effectively no proper attempt was
made to get these tools working with zones in s10.
Enda
If you'd like to help analyze and fix, we're happy for your
contributions. I'm willing to consider reasonably crafted patches for
well identified performance problems. However, time I spend answering
e-mail is time that I'm not spending writing code.
Are you willing to accept that pkg(5) does have serious problems
with performance, and needs improvements of an order of magnitude
or more?
On multiple occasions, there have been responses from developers here
indicating that there is still a great deal of performance analysis and
work to be done. Nobody is saying that there are no performance issues
to be resolved.
What we are saying is that expecting operation timing parity between
disparate package systems of a in-development system with different
goals is not reasonable. There will be areas where we never achieve
timing parity with another packaging system because of tradeoffs in
functionality vs. performance or for design reasons.
As noted in the pkg(5) man page, the system is still under development.
Its presence in a 'shipping' product is irrelevant to its
in-development status.
Cheers,
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
