On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 09:16:47 +0900 hero...@gentoo.org wrote: > Igor <lanthrus...@gmail.com> writes: > > > The ebuilds have approximately the same time to install, the failure > > rate is about the same, emerge is getting slower. > > I am curious about the slowness of emerge.
Try a --backtrack=0 approach, I no longer need to increase it. :) > How about profile the portage and rewrite the time-crucial part in > C/C++, or ideally, borrowing the counterpart from paludis? How > feasible is that? http://dev.gentoo.org/~tomwij/files/portage-2.2.7-python-2.7-backtrack-0.png http://dev.gentoo.org/~tomwij/files/portage-2.2.7-python-2.7-backtrack-0-hot.png http://dev.gentoo.org/~tomwij/files/portage-2.2.7-python-3.3-backtrack-0.png (hot is the hotshot profiler, it internally checks on the line level instead; 3.3's profiler is obstructed by module loading, no idea why) > I guess the dep-tree calculation is the slowest part. Affirmative. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
