On Monday 17 December 2007 14:38:30 Raphael wrote: > So, even if Portage was recoded in C++, performance improvements > would be marginal and the cost in man-hours would be too high. It > would take months before reaching the maturity level Portage has now > and all this time could be better spent trying to find solutions to > its architectural bottlenecks. > > I believe that a good solution would be evolving Portage to use > different forms of storage, like databases or even LDAP. In a home > desktop, you could use SQLite, which is light weight. In a Office > enviroment, you could use a larger database, like MySQL or PostgreSQL. > In this second case, it would even make sharing the package list > faster, since the only current method is sharing it over NFS. > > I understand that doing so could bloat Portage dependencies, but > it is, IMHO, a good way to improve its speed.
This post is hilarious for several reasons. Firstly there already exist a package manager for Gentoo which is written in C++. Paludis. And it has a lot of features that Portage has been missing for five years. And it's way more flexible than Portage. Secondly if you just put ebuilds in a database you gain nothing. I.e. other than the added bloat. I/O is still going to be the major bottleneck. :P -- Bo Andresen
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
