From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <gentoo-dev-return-17260-arch-gentoo-dev=gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org> Received: (qmail 11422 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2004 17:29:26 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 8 Nov 2004 17:29:26 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1CRDKY-0007RP-H7 for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:29:26 +0000 Received: (qmail 6677 invoked by uid 89); 8 Nov 2004 17:29:26 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev-unsubscribe@gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev-subscribe@gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 16828 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2004 17:29:25 +0000 From: Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org> To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 18:29:10 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 References: <418E8732.3040203@gentoo.org> <200411072329.57948.carlo@gentoo.org> <200411071453.10277.george@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200411071453.10277.george@gentoo.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1959687.rq9N029HIu"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200411081829.15739.carlo@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [LARGE MESSAGE] Media-sound reorganization! X-Archives-Salt: f623dd6a-f655-4c42-94e5-0b0586edf2d7 X-Archives-Hash: d7cfcadbde45af1e6d4ce6e27f7ab109 --nextPart1959687.rq9N029HIu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Sunday 07 November 2004 23:53, George Shapovalov wrote: > By what, 1% or less? (according to what I remember portage devs were sayi= ng > 90% of the time is spent in bash anyway). This was an assumption, based on the fact that you can expect all=20 subdirectories of categories to be package directories right now. When you= =20 write a tool supporting _arbitrary_ depths you'd need to walk down the tree= =20 and check for e.g. Manifest files all the time. I'm not familiar with the=20 Portage code, so someone else is welcome to give an exhausting answer. Also= I=20 put portage caching aside, just would like to see a version that _really_=20 works.=20 I general I don't think that arbitrary depths lower the complexity to find = a=20 specific package. Most likely it will raises the complexity of the Portage= =20 code quite a bit, though. Carsten --nextPart1959687.rq9N029HIu Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBBj6zrVwbzmvGLSW8RAnZgAKCVa2C9BdOYXfxAgeM0/rsGFpEPcwCeNExT D8fDiBk0Oc0YJ6pNAgd3l/U= =4UhD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1959687.rq9N029HIu--