On Dec 17, 2007 12:20 PM, Bo Ørsted Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday 17 December 2007 14:38:30 Raphael wrote: > > So, even if Portage was recoded in C++, performance improvements > > would be marginal and the cost in man-hours would be too high. It > > would take months before reaching the maturity level Portage has now > > and all this time could be better spent trying to find solutions to > > its architectural bottlenecks. > > > > I believe that a good solution would be evolving Portage to use > > different forms of storage, like databases or even LDAP. In a home > > desktop, you could use SQLite, which is light weight. In a Office > > enviroment, you could use a larger database, like MySQL or PostgreSQL. > > In this second case, it would even make sharing the package list > > faster, since the only current method is sharing it over NFS. > > > > I understand that doing so could bloat Portage dependencies, but > > it is, IMHO, a good way to improve its speed. > > This post is hilarious for several reasons. Firstly there already exist a > package manager for Gentoo which is written in C++. Paludis. And it has a lot > of features that Portage has been missing for five years. And it's way more > flexible than Portage. Secondly if you just put ebuilds in a database you > gain nothing. I.e. other than the added bloat. I/O is still going to be the > major bottleneck. :P
Hey, I made someone laugh today. Good deed of the day: check! :P I was unaware of Paludis. Re-reading the thread now, I saw that someone mentioned it. After googling for it, seems a lot of people are fond of it. Why is it not the default package manager yet? As for the second part, yes, using a database wouldn't get rid of the I/O problem, but could diminish it, since database data isn't spread across several directories and files. And I'm not proposing to store the entire ebuild within, but a representation of it that could be easily queried. > > -- > Bo Andresen > ï¿½ï¿½í¢‹ï¿½z� ��(��&j)b� b�
