On 09/10/12 13:58, Philip Brown wrote:
On 9/10/12 11:36 AM, Shawn Walker wrote:
On 09/10/12 11:26, Philip Brown wrote:
...
This is backwards. Priority should be on speed of normal operation, not
on esoteric searches.
Again, pkg(5) is not a tarball extractor, and never will be.
The design of pkg(5) has often chosen correctness and user experience
over performance where it matters.
Flawed comparisons with systems that do not have equivalent
functionality or correctness guarantees can only lead to tears.
Speed of execution IS "user experience", and a primary part of it.
It's disappointing to see, yet again, a whole bunch of excuses of,
"everything is fine we know what we're doing", rather than a simple
admission of,
"Hey, you're right, that's really bad performance. We'll work on it"
You're solving problems that almost no one cares about, and you ARENT
solving the problems that people DO care about.
Except we are. We have a significant amount of data indicating that our
users care a great deal about the reduced downtime, simplified update
mechanism, and guaranteed consistency that pkg(5) provides.
I appreciate that your set of concerns and needs may be different than
what pkg(5) has focused on, but it would be wholly wrong to assume that
applies to all or even most other consumers.
With that said, the performance of the packaging system has
significantly improved in almost every release of Solaris that it has
been provided in and will be improved again in future releases.
Cheers,
-Shawn
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
