From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LbrP0-000549-Ll for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:08:26 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B50D4E033C; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:08:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96C06E033C for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:08:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.9] (unknown [151.57.3.153]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8D08B7067 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:08:23 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <49A39CE7.4010201@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:08:23 +0100 From: Luca Barbato User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (X11/20081205) 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009) References: <1234257125.18160.2016.camel@localhost> <1234450419.20950.2.camel@localhost> <20090212160045.GB3642@comet> <20090212161644.GD3642@comet> <20090212162103.256b003f@snowcone> <20090212171055.GA3652@comet> <20090212172109.778fb268@snowcone> <20090212173743.GD3652@comet> <20090212180350.0d9a9df5@snowcone> <1235037961.13198.779.camel@localhost> <20090219125124.33eaa66c@snowcone> <1235077892.13198.1923.camel@localhost> <20090222171658.278ae167@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca> <49A1E1CB.1000806@gentoo.org> <20090222234800.29d64b8d@snowcone> <49A206A7.3050604@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <49A206A7.3050604@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 2daf9591-39af-4c90-88c9-daae56879118 X-Archives-Hash: 3fc5d9c2fff7f242e9b4f4391d988a40 Luca Barbato wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> Because your proposal addresses none of the underlying problems which >> GLEP 55 was created to solve. let's get some numbers to have an idea of the dimension of the problem. domino portage # wc -l /dev/shm/eapi_files.list 2854 /dev/shm/eapi_files.list domino portage # ls *-*/*/*.ebuild | wc -l 25761 domino portage # grep -l EAPI eclass/*.eclass | wc -l 22 domino portage # ls eclass/*.eclass | wc -l 240 there aren't eclasses setting EAPI directly. eapi is set either using EAPI=X or EAPI="X" domino portage # time grep EAPI *-*/*/*.ebuild > /dev/shm/eapi_files.list real 0m1.019s user 0m0.608s sys 0m0.412s domino portage # time (for a in *-*/*/*.ebuild*; do echo ${A##*.ebuild}; done) > /dev/null real 0m0.916s user 0m0.764s sys 0m0.152s domino portage # time emerge --regen > /dev/shm/regen real 0m9.308s user 0m7.648s sys 0m1.664s Restricting eapi so it could surely parsed using something as complex as grep would and using a two stage parsing would increase to about 1/9 Using a dumb way to extract the eapi from extension seems to take 1/10 Is there any technical merit in putting eapi in the file extension while we could restrict the format the same way in file and have about the same, negligible, performance hit? (I used warm cache since you need the file anyway so you don't spend time to look it up twice or put it in cache twice) Please come up with other numbers or saner implementations to compare. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo Council Member Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero