On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 17:10 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:10:51 -0400 Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | Every single year quarter after quarter the more updates > | that happen the slower portage is becoming. > | Care to solve that? > > This is a minute amount of time in comparison to anything significant. > If you care about Portage speed, you'd be far better off reducing the > number of packages that users have installed and reducing the number of > packages in the tree. > > | My fix would be to remove the ability to do package moves > | from portage all together. > > Which makes me rather glad that you're not fixing anything... > > | > | > i dont think this sort of thing should hold up tree > | > shuffles ... > | > | Well it should. > | > | package.keywords package.use package.mask etc.. > | > | Where is the stability and consistency when we end up > | forcing people to update /etc/portage files... > > Erm... Portage updates these automatically.
as .cfg_** files. The end user still has to run an etc-update and pray that it was not a file he/she had in masking. None the less I think you missed the part in the tread along time ago which Stefan said he would do the moves at the same time as bumps. Doing it that way solves most of the problems. Granted not all of them like the vdb/*DEPEND entries of other pkgs. -- Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
