On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 03:24:07PM +0200, Edwin Eefting wrote:
> My idea is to create a patch for something like a --cache option that
> will use a cached version of the filelist:
Something like that would be fairly easy to write, but only if there are
no conflicts between the cache and the live d
On Monday 23 May 2005 16:09, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> > -What are the most likely problems i would run into when i try to
> > implement this?
>
> You can expect a feature request that allows to manipulate certain parts
> of the cache only (re-scan or delete a subtree). This would turn the
> cache i
On Monday 23 May 2005 16:29, Carson Gaspar wrote:
> --On Monday, May 23, 2005 03:24:07 PM +0200 Edwin Eefting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> > My idea is to create a patch for something like a --cache option that
> > will use a cached version of the filelist: This way instead of creating
> > the
--On Monday, May 23, 2005 03:24:07 PM +0200 Edwin Eefting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
My idea is to create a patch for something like a --cache option that
will use a cached version of the filelist: This way instead of creating
the filelist every time (100.000's of system calls, diskaccesses),
Edwin Eefting wrote...
> -What are the opinions of other people on this list?
Sounds like a great idea for me but I'm just an rsync user.
> -Would it be easy to implement, or would it give too much trouble?
Without looking into the sources I think it should not be that difficult
to dump the l
Hi,
As a gentoo-user i frequently run the emerge sync command, which in turn does
a rsync with the mainserver. The 'problem' is that the portage directory tree
contains about 19.000 directories and 96.000 files. So building the filelist
takes a pretty long time, because of the many disk accesse
