Peter Tribble wrote: >> Pkg(5) is still under development. It's rather unreasonable to suggest >> that the unoptimized performance today, in development builds no less, >> will reflect the final performance of the product at release. We have >> more features to add and more optimization to perform. > > Pkg(5) has had considerable development effort expended on it. It's been > released in shipping product for over a year. SVR4 has been neglected and > left to rot.
Peter, that is not true as someone else recently pointed out (e.g. 'turbo' packaging fix to SVR4). >> If you'd like to help analyze and fix, we're happy for your >> contributions. I'm willing to consider reasonably crafted patches for >> well identified performance problems. However, time I spend answering >> e-mail is time that I'm not spending writing code. > > Are you willing to accept that pkg(5) does have serious problems > with performance, and needs improvements of an order of magnitude > or more? On multiple occasions, there have been responses from developers here indicating that there is still a great deal of performance analysis and work to be done. Nobody is saying that there are no performance issues to be resolved. What we are saying is that expecting operation timing parity between disparate package systems of a in-development system with different goals is not reasonable. There will be areas where we never achieve timing parity with another packaging system because of tradeoffs in functionality vs. performance or for design reasons. As noted in the pkg(5) man page, the system is still under development. Its presence in a 'shipping' product is irrelevant to its in-development status. Cheers, -- Shawn Walker
