On 01/11/2014 02:11 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 08:31:21 +0800 > Patrick Lauer <patr...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> On 01/10/2014 08:16 AM, 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. >>> >>> 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? >> >> Last I checked paludis wasn't faster - on average portage was a few >> percents faster. > > Your benchmark was comparing uncached behaviour, where bash is the slow > part and which users don't see. Wrong - even the cached cases was showing the same timing proportions.
And users see the uncached case whenever they use an overlay. > You were also not comparing like with > like -- any benchmarks of this nature should be taken with a heavy > pinch of salt, since Portage with everything turned on does less > validation that Paludis does with everything turned off... > Not my problem, bad code is bad.
