On 03/02/2014 16:04, Pandu Poluan wrote: > > On Jan 28, 2014 5:57 AM, "Neil Bothwick" <n...@digimed.co.uk > <mailto:n...@digimed.co.uk>> wrote: >> >> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:54:28 +0100, hasufell wrote: >> >> > >> If it's about performance (in the sense of speed), then paludis >> > >> is worse, because dependency calculation is more complex/complete >> > >> there. >> > > >> > > That makes no sense at all. Paludis is written in a different >> > > language using different algorithms. It's not about the amount of >> > > work it does so much as how efficiently it does it. >> >> > That's exactly what I was saying. I was talking about speed, not >> > efficiency. >> >> But the efficiency of the algorithm, and the language, affects the speed. >> You can't presume "it does more, therefore it takes longer" if the two >> programs do things in very different ways. >> > > I was thinking: is it feasible, to "precalculate" the dependency tree? > Or, at least "preprocess" all the sane (and insane) dependencies to help > portage?
I thought that's what the portage cache does, as far as it can. True, the cache reflects the state of the tree and not the parts of the tree a given machine is using, so how big a diff does that give? And don't forget overlays - they can slow things down immensely as more often than not there's no cache for them unless the user knows to do it manually. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
