On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 02:09:12 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 00:24:10 +0200 > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > William, I'm not sure if you're aware of how package managers work > > but checking reverse dependencies of a package takes significant > > amount of time. Changing -C to do that would be a serious > > performance regression. Which would result in users requesting yet > > another option to disable this. > > Eh, that's a Portage performance problem, not a package manager > performance problem. I do recall years ago paludis being much faster, and providing more detailed information on package slots, archs, etc. In a graph like output if I recall. It was super useful in package maintenance. It really helped with cleaning things safely! Last I checked in out ~year or so, It was just to difficult to get to work with portage. Paludis has changed considerably. Seems you need to change a system to work with it. Not as use along side of portage as it was in the past. It would be nice to be able to compare it side by side to portage. Though I know it has some different features. Need to check out pkgcore. Though I am not the one complaining about time. Just saying for those who are... -- William L. Thomson Jr.
pgp78rFL5QpTN.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
