From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-64168-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 121C6138247
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:17:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 95F18E0A04;
	Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:16:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B52B6E09D2
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:16:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from moguhome00.in.awa.tohoku.ac.jp (ernie02-dmz.awa.tohoku.ac.jp [130.34.99.37])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	(Authenticated sender: heroxbd)
	by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 914F133F4FC
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:16:51 +0000 (UTC)
From: heroxbd@gentoo.org
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage QOS
References: <52ce4eab.463f700a.4b43.16bd@mx.google.com>
	<CAAr7Pr9a_BRZji8LTJb7rE53ASgyA4nP2ysVGkr+5m5JRjnYDw@mail.gmail.com>
	<52ce9994.24f5980a.0660.342e@mx.google.com>
	<6345949.JsNcU8lWSX@cschwan-laptop>
	<52cebfa2.aa78980a.7a02.42e5@mx.google.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 09:16:47 +0900
In-Reply-To: <52cebfa2.aa78980a.7a02.42e5@mx.google.com> (Igor's message of
	"Thu, 9 Jan 2014 19:26:24 +0400")
Message-ID: <86r48g8zdc.fsf@moguhome00.in.awa.tohoku.ac.jp>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Archives-Salt: f44b7b38-a4dc-4010-857b-a3091872b549
X-Archives-Hash: 01af58e0b9b5756bfe05d7f4831b4ed7

Igor <lanthruster@gmail.com> writes:

> The ebuilds have approximately the same time to install, the failure
> rate is about the same, emerge is getting slower.

I am curious about the slowness of emerge.

How about profile the portage and rewrite the time-crucial part in
C/C++, or ideally, borrowing the counterpart from paludis? How feasible
is that?

I guess the dep-tree calculation is the slowest part.