---BeginMessage---
Actually, read through this article. It seems to indicate that the portage
system will not be running any quicker any time soon.
http://www.uwyn.com/resources/gentoo_departure.html
On Wednesday 30 July 2003 01:08, Marius Mauch wrote:
On 07/29/03 Fred Van Andel wrote:
Bering wrote:
Collins Richey wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 14:32:59 -0400
daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On July 29, 2003 01:50 pm, Dhruba Bandopadhyay wrote:
Emerge sync was never really 'quick' as such. A lot of files
(~5) files get updated each time including cache during the
'hang' that
Hi Bering,
Nachricht vom Mittwoch, 30. Juli 2003, 01:51:04:
Agreed! Just put emerge sync in a cron job or during the night, and
you'll never know how much time it took ;)
I will know, because it will still be running at the morning. With my
old laptop (Pentium-75), I sleep less than an emerge
William Hubbs wrote:
Hi all,
has anyone else noticed that emerge sync is taking a lot longer lately?
I have noticed that lately it is taking a lot longer to finish -- After the message
Updating portage cache . Done.
It just hangs there for a long time then finally exits. I saw a
On July 29, 2003 01:50 pm, Dhruba Bandopadhyay wrote:
Emerge sync was never really 'quick' as such. A lot of files (~5)
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
On 07/29/03 daniel wrote:
On July 29, 2003 01:50 pm, Dhruba Bandopadhyay wrote:
Emerge sync was never really 'quick' as such. A lot of files
(~5) files get updated each time including cache during the
'hang' that you mention. Unless you have a very fast computer it
will take some
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 (~5)
files get updated each time including cache during the 'hang' that you
mention. Unless you have a very fast
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
(~5) files get updated each time including cache during the
'hang' that you
It'd be most excellent if portage used a faster database engine... say
mysql.. to catalog it's data.
On Tuesday 29 July 2003 05:15 pm, daniel wrote:
On July 29, 2003 04:48 pm, Marius Mauch wrote:
The better way would be to rewrite portage with a modular approach, so
it can use different
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 14:32:59 -0400
daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On July 29, 2003 01:50 pm, Dhruba Bandopadhyay wrote:
Emerge sync was never really 'quick' as such. A lot of files
(~5) files get updated each time including cache during the
'hang' that you mention.
so what're
On 07/29/03 daniel wrote:
On July 29, 2003 04:48 pm, Marius Mauch wrote:
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.
alright then, i have some (not
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(07/29/2003 15:08)
On 07/29/03 daniel wrote:
On July 29, 2003 04:48 pm, Marius Mauch wrote:
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
On 07/29/03 Fred Van Andel wrote:
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(07/29/2003 15:08)
On 07/29/03 daniel wrote:
On July 29, 2003 04:48 pm, Marius Mauch wrote:
The better way would be to rewrite portage with a modular
approach, so it can use different backends (the current
Collins Richey wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 14:32:59 -0400
daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On July 29, 2003 01:50 pm, Dhruba Bandopadhyay wrote:
Emerge sync was never really 'quick' as such. A lot of files
(~5) files get updated each time including cache during the
'hang' that you mention.
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 17:27:28 -0400
Jerry McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It'd be most excellent if portage used a faster database engine...
say mysql.. to catalog it's data.
I would be all for this, so long as it is optional. I don't want to have
mysql running on a firewall say, just to
15 matches
Mail list logo
