On 07/29/03 daniel wrote: > On July 29, 2003 01:50 pm, Dhruba Bandopadhyay wrote: > > Emerge sync was never really 'quick' as such. A lot of files > > (~50000) files get updated each time including cache during the > > 'hang' that you mention. Unless you have a very fast computer it > > will take some time. > > so what're the chances that portage might be switching to a more > robust database-driven setup? i'm just a webgeek, but i would think > that doing an emergesync and updating the portage cache would be > considerably faster if everything were running on mysql or > something....
If you are finished with coding it submit it on bugzilla ;-) Marius -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
