maillog: 10/05/2005-11:28:21(+0200): Martin Schlemmer types > On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 13:07 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote: > > Georgi Georgiev wrote: [Sun May 08 2005, 08:19:20PM EDT] > > > Would it be inappropriate to start bitching (again) about a flat > > > tree where each package can go in multiple categories? > > > > That's something I'd love to see eventually... I mean the flat tree, > > not the complaining ;-) > > > > Problem with flat tree, is the search times might then suck even more, > as last I heard, too many dirs/files in one directory have a huge speed > penalty.
The flat tree does not imply a flat hierarchy on disk. Files and directories can still be organized in a more optimized manner. For example -- put each package in a directory of its first letter. Maybe even two letters if you think that the winner 'g' with 736 packages is too many. This is only true when the portage tree is stored on a filesystem. I recall some effort being made in making portage support reading the portage tree from a zipfile, so we may eventually see some other backends that would not suffer from this problem. If that's the only problem you're having with the flat tree, should I consider you a supporter? -- / Georgi Georgiev / The Golden Rule of Arts and Sciences: He who / \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ has the gold makes the rules. \ / +81(90)2877-8845 / /
pgpg1FVxNR1UO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
