Hello everyone!
Benno Schulenberg wrote:
Today the updating of the portage cache was real quick -- something
like a minute, instead of the ten minutes it used to take during
the past month or so. What has changed?
Okay. I'm not sure what you people are talking about here. My box
Norberto Bensa wrote:
Hello everyone!
Okay. I'm not sure what you people are talking about here. My box
(portage-2.0.53_rc7) takes forever to update cache.
What version are you running?
I'm running version 2.0.51.22-r3. It has something to do with a file
that it gets when it syncs I
Today the updating of the portage cache was real quick -- something
like a minute, instead of the ten minutes it used to take during
the past month or so. What has changed?
Was it the r2 to r3 update on glibc-2.3.5? Did I emerge something
in the meantime that Portage uses if present but does
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:07:06 +0100 Benno Schulenberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Today the updating of the portage cache was real quick -- something
| like a minute, instead of the ten minutes it used to take during
| the past month or so. What has changed?
A really really dumb bit of code in
On 11/1/05, Benno Schulenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Today the updating of the portage cache was real quick -- somethinglike a minute, instead of the ten minutes it used to take duringthe past month or so.What has changed?Was it the r2 to r3 update on glibc-2.3.5
?Did I emerge somethingin the
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
A really really dumb bit of code in Portage itself was changed. See the
gentoo-portage-dev list archives if you want technical details.
Is that the same reason it was sticking at 50% or so? If so there is a
thread about it on the forums too. I hope that fixed it.
Fernando Meira wrote:
Have you ran some command that caches the portage dir to memory before
updating portage cache? That normally speeds up.. but then again,
maybe there were changes so that the annoying problem got fixed...
Fernando
You been running that du -s command to huh? It does
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 06:57:59 -0600 Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| A really really dumb bit of code in Portage itself was changed. See
| the gentoo-portage-dev list archives if you want technical details.
|
| Is that the same reason it was sticking at 50% or so?
Yup.
--
On 11/1/05, Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:A really really dumb bit of code in Portage itself was changed. See thegentoo-portage-dev list archives if you want technical details.Is that the same reason it was sticking at 50% or so?If so there is a
thread about it on the forums
On 11/1/05, Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fernando Meira wrote: Have you ran some command that caches the portage dir to memory before updating portage cache? That normally speeds up.. but then again, maybe there were changes so that the annoying problem got fixed...
FernandoYou been running that
Hi,
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 14:21:23 +0100
Fernando Meira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You been running that du -s command to huh? It does work. I really
need it on my old 200MHz machine. Would you happen to know what that
command does? I read the man page but it didn't help much. I'm
learning
Fernando Meira wrote:
Yeah.. I sync'ed portage yesterday and still took forever to finish.
Although all the way is slow and painful, the worst part was indeed
from 50% to 52%.. these 2% take SOO loong
You say that your old 200MHz took 30m? I'd say my laptop took at
least 30m
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
A really really dumb bit of code in Portage itself was changed.
But the last time I updated portage was three weeks ago. And only
today suddenly the cache's updating lost its terrible slowness.
See the gentoo-portage-dev list archives if you want technical
details.
Dale wrote:
Fernando Meira wrote:
Have you ran some command that caches the portage dir to memory before
updating portage cache? That normally speeds up.. but then again,
maybe there were changes so that the annoying problem got fixed...
Fernando
You been running that du -s command
Ryan L wrote:
What is this 'du -s command' you speak of? If it makes things faster,
I have to try it!
Since they fixed it, it may not help that much now. But if you still
have trouble,
du -s /var/cache/edb
du -s /usr/portage
emerge sync
There was a explaination as to what it does earlier
Dale wrote:
Ryan L wrote:
What is this 'du -s command' you speak of? If it makes things faster,
I have to try it!
Since they fixed it, it may not help that much now. But if you still
have trouble,
du -s /var/cache/edb
du -s /usr/portage
emerge sync
There was a
Ryan L wrote:
Yeah, I synced earlier and it took less than a minute. I'll give it a
shot in a few days just to see if there is any improvement still
though. Thanks.
I just done my nightly sync, twice because the first one gave be a boo
boo message, and it went so fast that I missed it.
17 matches
Mail list logo