From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1M4gXQ-0006NQ-Tb for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 14 May 2009 19:24:17 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 03A66E070D; Thu, 14 May 2009 19:24:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dev.gentooexperimental.org (dev.gentooexperimental.org [81.93.240.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAE12E070D for ; Thu, 14 May 2009 19:24:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lolcathost.localnet (xdsl-78-34-101-45.netcologne.de [78.34.101.45]) by dev.gentooexperimental.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50DB4626B3D for ; Thu, 14 May 2009 21:24:15 +0200 (CEST) From: Patrick Lauer To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55 Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 21:24:14 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.90 (Linux/2.6.28; KDE/4.2.85; x86_64; ; ) References: <200905142006.51998.patrick@gentoo.org> <4255c2570905141217uda219cbp19a6160493e35c62@mail.gmail.com> <20090514202018.7464a2dc@snowcone> In-Reply-To: <20090514202018.7464a2dc@snowcone> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200905142124.14702.patrick@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 1b7e79d3-90ea-4cfa-b1c4-971ee937688a X-Archives-Hash: cd1b200e51140c67ef7784e029c098e1 On Thursday 14 May 2009 21:20:18 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 14 May 2009 13:17:24 -0600 > > RB wrote: > > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 13:11, Ciaran McCreesh > > > > wrote: > > > Please explain why you claimed GLEP 55 makes things slower. Until > > > you answer that, it's hard to take you for anything other than a > > > troll. > > > > Hell, I'll explain. Read paragraph 8 again. Slowly. Read it a > > second time, since you obviously didn't read the first time. The > > paragraph makes the point that the pro-GLEP55 stance says that > > encoding EAPI inside the file is slower. It is not saying GLEP55 is > > slower, it is attempting to debunk the theory that it is faster. > > "so with glep55 caching it is actually slower!" > > There's no possible way that can make sense. Whatever he's claiming by > that is obviously nonsense. Ah. I was not precise enough. Let me rephrase it in less ambiguous terms then - "Having EAPI in the ebuild is slower than having it encoded in the filename" Counterpoint: No, you use caching if it is that darn slow Bonus: GLEP55 makes caching that slower than accessing it directly Extra bonus: about a dozen emails going around in circles over a careless formulation that gets misinterpreted into "The iraqis have weapons of mass destruction!"