On 07/29/03 William Hubbs wrote: > On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 02:32:59PM -0400, 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.... > > True, but then you force everyone who is running gentoo to have a full > database as part of the base system, and I don't think that is a good > idea. > > I don't understand the internals of portage very well at all, but > there must be a better way of handling it than what we have now > without using a full-blown database.
The better way would be to rewrite portage with a modular approach, so it can use different backends (the current code is not very friendly for that). But that needs a lot of time. Marius -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
