[gentoo-user] Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[gentoo-user] Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Lord Sauron]

I think I may have made a break through here!

I've always noticed that everything portage is very slow.  It's like
it's having to un-tar and un-bzip everything all the time...  lo and
behold, it is.

I've found (after much exploration) that there is a archive:
/portage-20060123.tar.bz2

This has - to the best of my knowledge - all the ebuild headers or
whatever for everything.  I know I can un-tar this and all, however, I
want portage to use it in its uncompressed state, just to speed things
up.  I'm not burning for hard drive space, so a little more speed
would be great.

However, I have no idea where to start to try and configure portage to
reflect a change like this.  I've read the man pages for ebuild and
emerge several times over without finding any hints, so I was thinking
someone on this list would know.

I also think that there's another file, /metadata.tar.bz2, which I
think is portage-related.  If possible I'd like to uncompress that as
well.

I think this is the cause of a slow portage because everything takes a
long time to start going, then it's just fine.  It takes about as long
to start going as it does to open the archive
/portage-20060123.tar.bz2 - conincidence?  I think not!

I also get the bonehead award: there was a new kernel sitting on my
hard drive and just yesterday I found and installed it.  It was
remarkably easy to install!  I loaded the configuration file from my
old kernel and then just make && make install and it worked!  I didn't
even have to edit /boot/grub/menu.lst!  Dang...  I got done and said
"that was easy."  I think I'm really getting the hang of all this!

-- 
========== GCv3.12 ==========
GCS d-(++) s+: a? C++ UL+>++++ P+
L++ E--- W+(+++) N++ o? K? w--- O? M+
V? PS- PE+ Y-(--) PGP- t+++ 5? X R tv-- b+
                DI+++ D+ G e* h- !r !y
========= END GCv3.12 ========

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Thomas Kirchner]

* On May 25 11:45, Lord Sauron (gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org) wrote:
> I've found (after much exploration) that there is a archive:
> /portage-20060123.tar.bz2

This is just a remnant from when you installed Gentoo.  You can delete 
that file.  Portage is already using uncompressed files under 
/usr/portage - that tarball is just a "starter" tarball that portage 
bootstraps itself with during the initial Gentoo installation.

> I also think that there's another file, /metadata.tar.bz2, which I
> think is portage-related.  If possible I'd like to uncompress that as
> well.

I've never seen a metadata tarball.  metadata.xml is something portage 
keeps uncompressed in /usr/portage for every package.

> It takes about as long to start going as it does to open the archive
> /portage-20060123.tar.bz2 - conincidence?  I think not!

I think so ;)

Tom
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Daniel da Veiga]

On 5/25/06, Lord Sauron <lordsauronthegreat@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think I may have made a break through here!
>
> I've always noticed that everything portage is very slow.  It's like
> it's having to un-tar and un-bzip everything all the time...  lo and
> behold, it is.

No, it is not.

>
> I've found (after much exploration) that there is a archive:
> /portage-20060123.tar.bz2

Simply a portage snapshot, maybe the one you used to install Gentoo in
the first place? Take a look at the date and tell me I'm wrong.

>
> This has - to the best of my knowledge - all the ebuild headers or
> whatever for everything.  I know I can un-tar this and all, however, I
> want portage to use it in its uncompressed state, just to speed things
> up.  I'm not burning for hard drive space, so a little more speed
> would be great.

Of course, it is a portage snapshot, it has a whole compressed portage
tree, used to install, or update portage when using alternative
methods for those (like me) that lack the capacity to use remote
RSYNC.

>
> However, I have no idea where to start to try and configure portage to
> reflect a change like this.  I've read the man pages for ebuild and
> emerge several times over without finding any hints, so I was thinking
> someone on this list would know.

There's no "change" and there's no such feature. If you take a look at
/usr/portage, you'll notice that is has all "portage related" stuff
there, a snapshot is decompressed there when you install (correct me
if I'm wrong, but you installed using the Gentoo Installer, didn't
you? if you had a complete experience of Gentoo install, you would
know that by now, that's why I strongly advice new users to AVOID THE
INSTALLER). If you sync once in a while, it is updated. Portage is not
kept compressed.

>
> I also think that there's another file, /metadata.tar.bz2, which I
> think is portage-related.  If possible I'd like to uncompress that as
> well.

Oh, this one was a good choice, metadata is used by portage, but if
you take a look at /usr/portage/metadata, it is uncompressed there
too, and that is what portage uses.

>
> I think this is the cause of a slow portage because everything takes a
> long time to start going, then it's just fine.  It takes about as long
> to start going as it does to open the archive
> /portage-20060123.tar.bz2 - conincidence?  I think not!

But it is. That's because of caching, not because it uncompress
everything every time and compress it again later, that would be
stupid (forgive my language).

>
> I also get the bonehead award: there was a new kernel sitting on my
> hard drive and just yesterday I found and installed it.  It was
> remarkably easy to install!  I loaded the configuration file from my
> old kernel and then just make && make install and it worked!  I didn't
> even have to edit /boot/grub/menu.lst!  Dang...  I got done and said
> "that was easy."  I think I'm really getting the hang of all this!

You have run an "emerge -u world" and it got the kernel sources, you
have no special needs and so the default configuration fit your need,
compiling kernels is EASY, making them work, that's a hard one.

You sincerely must be booting from your old kernel and your
/usr/src/linux link must be pointing at your old sources, else you
would have some problems and probably would have to recompile,
reconfigure some stuff, because after make and all, you should copy
the image to /boot and, if necessary, change the grub.conf (menu.lst)
to point at the right file.

See the Kernel upgrade guide at Gentoo.org for more info.

-- 
Daniel da Veiga
Computer Operator - RS - Brazil
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM/IT/P/O d-? s:- a? C++$ UBLA++ P+ L++ E--- W+++$ N o+ K- w O M- V-
PS PE Y PGP- t+ 5 X+++ R+* tv b+ DI+++ D+ G+ e h+ r+ y++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Thomas Kirchner]

* On May 25 16:44, Daniel da Veiga (gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org) wrote:
> (correct me if I'm wrong, but you installed using the Gentoo Installer, 
> didn't you? if you had a complete experience of Gentoo install, you 
> would know that by now, that's why I strongly advice new users to AVOID 
> THE INSTALLER)

Good point, Daniel.  I totally forgot about the installer because I've 
never even looked at it, but you're right - the only way someone could 
miss that is if they used the installer or if someone else installed 
Gentoo for them.

That said, I must reiterate the sentiment - avoid the installer like the 
plague.

(Sorry, installer project folks.  I just don't agree with it.)

To the original poster, and to anyone else who has used the installer, 
please do the list and yourselves a favor - read the guides, learn your 
system.  I don't mean this to be rude in any way, but you'll get much 
more benefit out of Gentoo that way.

Tom
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Steven Susbauer]

On Thu, 25 May 2006, Daniel da Veiga wrote:

> > I also get the bonehead award: there was a new kernel sitting on my
> > hard drive and just yesterday I found and installed it.  It was
> > remarkably easy to install!  I loaded the configuration file from my
> > old kernel and then just make && make install and it worked!  I didn't
> > even have to edit /boot/grub/menu.lst!  Dang...  I got done and said
> > "that was easy."  I think I'm really getting the hang of all this!
>
> You have run an "emerge -u world" and it got the kernel sources, you
> have no special needs and so the default configuration fit your need,
> compiling kernels is EASY, making them work, that's a hard one.
>
> You sincerely must be booting from your old kernel and your
> /usr/src/linux link must be pointing at your old sources, else you
> would have some problems and probably would have to recompile,
> reconfigure some stuff, because after make and all, you should copy
> the image to /boot and, if necessary, change the grub.conf (menu.lst)
> to point at the right file.
>
> See the Kernel upgrade guide at Gentoo.org for more info.

I don't know what the default grub.conf is for the Gentoo installer, but
if it points to /boot/vmlinuz then make install is sufficient to install
the new, working kernel... it rewrites symlinks to the new kernel. BTW,
he copied the config from his old kernel, it
is not using the default options and thus *should* work just fine.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Daniel da Veiga]

On 5/25/06, Steven Susbauer <stupendoussteve@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 25 May 2006, Daniel da Veiga wrote:
>
> > > I also get the bonehead award: there was a new kernel sitting on my
> > > hard drive and just yesterday I found and installed it.  It was
> > > remarkably easy to install!  I loaded the configuration file from my
> > > old kernel and then just make && make install and it worked!  I didn't
> > > even have to edit /boot/grub/menu.lst!  Dang...  I got done and said
> > > "that was easy."  I think I'm really getting the hang of all this!
> >
> > You have run an "emerge -u world" and it got the kernel sources, you
> > have no special needs and so the default configuration fit your need,
> > compiling kernels is EASY, making them work, that's a hard one.
> >
> > You sincerely must be booting from your old kernel and your
> > /usr/src/linux link must be pointing at your old sources, else you
> > would have some problems and probably would have to recompile,
> > reconfigure some stuff, because after make and all, you should copy
> > the image to /boot and, if necessary, change the grub.conf (menu.lst)
> > to point at the right file.
> >
> > See the Kernel upgrade guide at Gentoo.org for more info.
>
> I don't know what the default grub.conf is for the Gentoo installer, but

It points at a kernel named as Genkernel does.

> if it points to /boot/vmlinuz then make install is sufficient to install

That's why I know it isn't pointing at vmlinuz, because the installer
(and thus, the OP) uses genkernel.

> the new, working kernel... it rewrites symlinks to the new kernel. BTW,

Only if you specifically do a USE="symlink" emerge gentoo-sources

> he copied the config from his old kernel, it
> is not using the default options and thus *should* work just fine.

Yeah, I missed that line. You're right. But he didn't installed the
new kernel, and alsa-driver, ndiswrapper, nvidia drivers and a lot of
other stuff claim a new compile after a kernel upgrade, I doubt it
would be as clean as the OP stated. But yeah, it may happen.

-- 
Daniel da Veiga
Computer Operator - RS - Brazil
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM/IT/P/O d-? s:- a? C++$ UBLA++ P+ L++ E--- W+++$ N o+ K- w O M- V-
PS PE Y PGP- t+ 5 X+++ R+* tv b+ DI+++ D+ G+ e h+ r+ y++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 500 bytes --]

On Thu, 25 May 2006 17:33:47 -0300, Daniel da Veiga wrote:

> > the new, working kernel... it rewrites symlinks to the new kernel.
> > BTW,
> 
> Only if you specifically do a USE="symlink" emerge gentoo-sources

No, that controls the /usr/src/linux symlink to the sources.
The /boot/vmlinuz symlink is created when you "make install" the kernel.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

COBOL: (n.) an old computer language, designed to be read and not
       run. Unfortunately, it is often run anyway.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Daniel da Veiga]

On 5/25/06, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 May 2006 17:33:47 -0300, Daniel da Veiga wrote:
>
> > > the new, working kernel... it rewrites symlinks to the new kernel.
> > > BTW,
> >
> > Only if you specifically do a USE="symlink" emerge gentoo-sources
>
> No, that controls the /usr/src/linux symlink to the sources.
> The /boot/vmlinuz symlink is created when you "make install" the kernel.
>

Hmm, I see. Thanks for the info.
Anyway, the OP is using genkernel (wether it likes/knows it or not)...

>
> --
> Neil Bothwick
>
> COBOL: (n.) an old computer language, designed to be read and not
>        run. Unfortunately, it is often run anyway.
>

*lol* Gotta send that out to my friends that are COBOL lovers...

-- 
Daniel da Veiga
Computer Operator - RS - Brazil
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM/IT/P/O d-? s:- a? C++$ UBLA++ P+ L++ E--- W+++$ N o+ K- w O M- V-
PS PE Y PGP- t+ 5 X+++ R+* tv b+ DI+++ D+ G+ e h+ r+ y++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Lord Sauron]

On 5/25/06, Thomas Kirchner <lists@halffull.org> wrote:
> * On May 25 11:45, Lord Sauron (gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org) wrote:
> > I've found (after much exploration) that there is a archive:
> > /portage-20060123.tar.bz2
>
> This is just a remnant from when you installed Gentoo.  You can delete
> that file.  Portage is already using uncompressed files under
> /usr/portage - that tarball is just a "starter" tarball that portage
> bootstraps itself with during the initial Gentoo installation.

That's curious.  So I can delete this tarball then?

> > I also think that there's another file, /metadata.tar.bz2, which I
> > think is portage-related.  If possible I'd like to uncompress that as
> > well.
>
> I've never seen a metadata tarball.  metadata.xml is something portage
> keeps uncompressed in /usr/portage for every package.

I've got one on my hard drive.  You can have it if you want ; )

> > It takes about as long to start going as it does to open the archive
> > /portage-20060123.tar.bz2 - conincidence?  I think not!
>
> I think so ;)

If it's not, then I really need to ask why on earth portage takes so
long to just index and search packages that took apt-get much less
time to work with.  I don't think it should be this slow.  I'm not
even talking about compile-times - I know and expect those to be slow,
but just raw package searching and stuff is not that fast.

-- 
========== GCv3.12 ==========
GCS d-(++) s+: a? C++ UL+>++++ P+
L++ E--- W+(+++) N++ o? K? w--- O? M+
V? PS- PE+ Y-(--) PGP- t+++ 5? X R tv-- b+
                DI+++ D+ G e* h- !r !y
========= END GCv3.12 ========

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Bo Ørsted Andresen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 591 bytes --]

Friday 26 May 2006 01:00 skrev Lord Sauron:
> If it's not, then I really need to ask why on earth portage takes so
> long to just index and search packages that took apt-get much less
> time to work with.  I don't think it should be this slow.  I'm not
> even talking about compile-times - I know and expect those to be slow,
> but just raw package searching and stuff is not that fast.

Do like the rest of us. emerge eix and use that for searching. Make sure to 
run update-eix everytime you have sync'ed portage or better yet, use eix-sync 
to sync portage.

-- 
Bo Andresen

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Teresa and Dale]

Lord Sauron wrote:

>
> I've got one on my hard drive.  You can have it if you want ; )


I have them in /usr/portage/*/*/metadata.xml but none anywhere else
though.  There are none that end in .tar.bz2 though.  Where is yours and
where is mine?  O_O

Dale
:-)
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Iain Buchanan]

On Thu, 2006-05-25 at 16:00 -0700, Lord Sauron wrote:
> On 5/25/06, Thomas Kirchner <lists@halffull.org> wrote:

> > > It takes about as long to start going as it does to open the archive
> > > /portage-20060123.tar.bz2 - conincidence?  I think not!
> >
> > I think so ;)
> 
> If it's not, then I really need to ask why on earth portage takes so
> long to just index and search packages that took apt-get much less
> time to work with.

In defence of portage, I estimate there are 11229 packages that portage
has to search through descriptions, dependencies, masks, etc:

$ cd /usr/portage; find . -maxdepth 2 -mindepth 1 -type d | wc -l
11229

does apt-get really search this many packages?

>   I don't think it should be this slow.

And I don't think I should have this little money :)  But seriously, I
think you trade off speed when searching, vs speed when syncing, vs
keeping a database up to date.  As already mentioned, there are other
tools to help speed it up.

Also,

On Thu, 2006-05-25 at 11:45 -0700, Lord Sauron wrote:
> 
> I also get the bonehead award: there was a new kernel sitting on my
> hard drive and just yesterday I found and installed it.  It was
> remarkably easy to install!  I loaded the configuration file from my
> old kernel and then just make && make install and it worked!  I didn't
> even have to edit /boot/grub/menu.lst!

Are you sure you're running it if you didn't have to edit grub?  Does
`uname -r` agree with the new version you just installed?

cya,
-- 
Iain Buchanan <iaindb at netspace dot net dot au>

A jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer.
		-- Robert Frost

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Iain Buchanan]

On Thu, 2006-05-25 at 18:20 -0300, Daniel da Veiga wrote:

> Anyway, the OP is using genkernel (wether it likes/knows it or not)...

This doesn't look like genkernel:

>  I loaded the configuration file from my
> old kernel and then just make && make install

to use genkernel, you have to call genkernel.  If he's typing make &&
make install, then he's just using the plain old kernel makefile.
-- 
Iain Buchanan <iaindb at netspace dot net dot au>

There is not much to choose between a woman who deceives us for another,
and a woman who deceives another for ourselves.
		-- Augier

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Lord Sauron]

sorry for my sin.  I didn't know about eix.

On 5/25/06, Bo Ørsted Andresen <bo.andresen@zlin.dk> wrote:
> Friday 26 May 2006 01:00 skrev Lord Sauron:
> > If it's not, then I really need to ask why on earth portage takes so
> > long to just index and search packages that took apt-get much less
> > time to work with. I don't think it should be this slow. I'm not
> > even talking about compile-times - I know and expect those to be slow,
> > but just raw package searching and stuff is not that fast.
>
> Do like the rest of us. emerge eix and use that for searching. Make sure to
> run update-eix everytime you have sync'ed portage or better yet, use eix-sync
> to sync portage.
>
> --
> Bo Andresen
>
>
>


-- 
========== GCv3.12 ==========
GCS d-(++) s+: a? C++ UL+>++++ P+
L++ E--- W+(+++) N++ o? K? w--- O? M+
V? PS- PE+ Y-(--) PGP- t+++ 5? X R tv-- b+
                DI+++ D+ G e* h- !r !y
========= END GCv3.12 ========

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Hemmann, Volker Armin]

On Friday 26 May 2006 04:12, Lord Sauron wrote:
> sorry for my sin.  I didn't know about eix.
>
> On 5/25/06, Bo Ørsted Andresen <bo.andresen@zlin.dk> wrote:
> > Friday 26 May 2006 01:00 skrev Lord Sauron:
> > > If it's not, then I really need to ask why on earth portage takes so
> > > long to just index and search packages that took apt-get much less
> > > time to work with. I don't think it should be this slow. I'm not
> > > even talking about compile-times - I know and expect those to be slow,
> > > but just raw package searching and stuff is not that fast.
> >
> > Do like the rest of us. emerge eix and use that for searching. Make sure
> > to run update-eix everytime you have sync'ed portage or better yet, use
> > eix-sync to sync portage.
> >
> > --

or better, install esearch. It is as fast as eix, and it comes with esync.

So instead of emerge sync AND update-eix, you just run esync.

Has the additional advantage, that it lists all new and updates packages, when 
the sync is finished.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Steven Susbauer]

>
> > he copied the config from his old kernel, it
> > is not using the default options and thus *should* work just fine.
>
> Yeah, I missed that line. You're right. But he didn't installed the
> new kernel, and alsa-driver, ndiswrapper, nvidia drivers and a lot of
> other stuff claim a new compile after a kernel upgrade, I doubt it
> would be as clean as the OP stated. But yeah, it may happen.
>

alsa could easily be built into the kernel, I know when I install a new
kernel it is as easy as running make and make install, and re-emerging the
nvidia-kernel if I'm using it. AFAIK this person didn't say anything about
alsa, nvidia, ndiswrapper, etc. etc. A kernel compile compile and
install is precisely as easy as the OP stated. make && make install &&
(make modules_install) is all it takes, if you're pointing at
/boot/vmlinuz.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Daniel da Veiga]

On 5/25/06, Iain Buchanan <iaindb@netspace.net.au> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-05-25 at 18:20 -0300, Daniel da Veiga wrote:
>
> > Anyway, the OP is using genkernel (wether it likes/knows it or not)...
>
> This doesn't look like genkernel:
>

It doesn't have to look, he used the Gentoo installer, and so, it IS GENKERNEL.

> >  I loaded the configuration file from my
> > old kernel and then just make && make install
>
> to use genkernel, you have to call genkernel.  If he's typing make &&
> make install, then he's just using the plain old kernel makefile.

That if you do a manual install, the installer use it, or better, if
you choose it will use the same kernel as the livecd, that is, voilá,
genkernel. Try it, its pretty cool.

-- 
Daniel da Veiga
Computer Operator - RS - Brazil
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM/IT/P/O d-? s:- a? C++$ UBLA++ P+ L++ E--- W+++$ N o+ K- w O M- V-
PS PE Y PGP- t+ 5 X+++ R+* tv b+ DI+++ D+ G+ e h+ r+ y++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Daniel da Veiga]

On 5/25/06, Steven Susbauer <stupendoussteve@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > he copied the config from his old kernel, it
> > > is not using the default options and thus *should* work just fine.
> >
> > Yeah, I missed that line. You're right. But he didn't installed the
> > new kernel, and alsa-driver, ndiswrapper, nvidia drivers and a lot of
> > other stuff claim a new compile after a kernel upgrade, I doubt it
> > would be as clean as the OP stated. But yeah, it may happen.
> >
>
> alsa could easily be built into the kernel, I know when I install a new
> kernel it is as easy as running make and make install, and re-emerging the
> nvidia-kernel if I'm using it. AFAIK this person didn't say anything about
> alsa, nvidia, ndiswrapper, etc. etc. A kernel compile compile and
> install is precisely as easy as the OP stated. make && make install &&
> (make modules_install) is all it takes, if you're pointing at
> /boot/vmlinuz.

But he isn't because he used the installer and thus use genkernel,
hmm, its like the third time I'll say that, so, I'll stop and report
you all to read the complete thread.

-- 
Daniel da Veiga
Computer Operator - RS - Brazil
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM/IT/P/O d-? s:- a? C++$ UBLA++ P+ L++ E--- W+++$ N o+ K- w O M- V-
PS PE Y PGP- t+ 5 X+++ R+* tv b+ DI+++ D+ G+ e h+ r+ y++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Iain Buchanan]

On Thu, 2006-05-25 at 23:50 -0300, Daniel da Veiga wrote:
> On 5/25/06, Iain Buchanan <iaindb@netspace.net.au> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-05-25 at 18:20 -0300, Daniel da Veiga wrote:
> >
> > > Anyway, the OP is using genkernel (wether it likes/knows it or not)...
> >
> > This doesn't look like genkernel:
> >
> 
> It doesn't have to look, he used the Gentoo installer, and so, it IS GENKERNEL.
> 
> > >  I loaded the configuration file from my
> > > old kernel and then just make && make install
> >
> > to use genkernel, you have to call genkernel.  If he's typing make &&
> > make install, then he's just using the plain old kernel makefile.
> 
> That if you do a manual install, the installer use it, or better, if
> you choose it will use the same kernel as the livecd, that is, voilá,
> genkernel. Try it, its pretty cool.

Yes, the initial install seems to be from the installer, which would
have used genkernel to build a kernel. BUT he then typed "make && make
install" himself, rebooted, and voila, he is not using genkernel any
more.
-- 
Iain Buchanan <iaindb at netspace dot net dot au>

  The first condition of immortality is death. -Stanislaw Lec

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Richard Fish]

On 5/25/06, Daniel da Veiga <danieldaveiga@gmail.com> wrote:
> But he isn't because he used the installer and thus use genkernel,
> hmm, its like the third time I'll say that, so, I'll stop and report
> you all to read the complete thread.

It doesn't really matter how many times you say it, the OP did *not*
use genkernel to install his _new_ kernel.  He quite explicitly said
"make && make install".  He *may* have unwittingly used genkernel when
he first installed his system, but he definitely didn't upgrade with
it.

-Richard

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Ryan Tandy]

Lord Sauron wrote:
> On 5/25/06, Thomas Kirchner <lists@halffull.org> wrote:
>> * On May 25 11:45, Lord Sauron (gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org) wrote:
>> > I've found (after much exploration) that there is a archive:
>> > /portage-20060123.tar.bz2
>>
Much exploration?  Forgive my amazement and please don't be *too* 
terribly offended by the rudeness of what I'm about to type, but...

you call `ls /` 'much exploration'??

> That's curious.  So I can delete this tarball then?
> 
Yes.  In fact, someone should tell the Installer people that it should 
clean up after itself.

>> > It takes about as long to start going as it does to open the archive
>> > /portage-20060123.tar.bz2 - conincidence?  I think not!
>>
>> I think so ;)
> 
> If it's not, then I really need to ask why on earth portage takes so
> long to just index and search packages that took apt-get much less
> time to work with.  I don't think it should be this slow.  I'm not
> even talking about compile-times - I know and expect those to be slow,
> but just raw package searching and stuff is not that fast.
> 

The time is how long it takes for python to 'import portage'. 
Unfortunately that's a limitation of the portage code - that even minor 
metadata searches and such can't take place without a full 'import 
portage'.  The import is a cached process, so the metadata only has to 
be loaded from disk once, and is quickly used from RAM each time thereafter.

If speed when searching packages is an issue, try app-portage/eix or 
http://gentoo-portage.com.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Ryan Tandy]

Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
> So instead of emerge sync AND update-eix, you just run esync.

eix-sync

It's only three more keys... :P
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Lord Sauron]

On 5/25/06, Iain Buchanan <iaindb@netspace.net.au> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-05-25 at 16:00 -0700, Lord Sauron wrote:
> > On 5/25/06, Thomas Kirchner <lists@halffull.org> wrote:
>
> > > > It takes about as long to start going as it does to open the archive
> > > > /portage-20060123.tar.bz2 - conincidence?  I think not!
> > >
> > > I think so ;)
> >
> > If it's not, then I really need to ask why on earth portage takes so
> > long to just index and search packages that took apt-get much less
> > time to work with.
>
> In defence of portage, I estimate there are 11229 packages that portage
> has to search through descriptions, dependencies, masks, etc:

apt-get (as of Debian 3.1 Sarge) searches 33,333 seperate packages or so.

> $ cd /usr/portage; find . -maxdepth 2 -mindepth 1 -type d | wc -l
> 11229
>
> does apt-get really search this many packages?

It does more.

> >   I don't think it should be this slow.
>
> And I don't think I should have this little money :)  But seriously, I
> think you trade off speed when searching, vs speed when syncing, vs
> keeping a database up to date.  As already mentioned, there are other
> tools to help speed it up.

Yeah, well...  apt-get was faster on the sync and on the search.  It's
not fair to compare installation times, but it was also faster on
calculating the dependencies.

If anything, this is a indicator that I need to try and contribute to
the portage project...  at least contribute as much as I'm able.

> Also,
>
> On Thu, 2006-05-25 at 11:45 -0700, Lord Sauron wrote:
> >
> > I also get the bonehead award: there was a new kernel sitting on my
> > hard drive and just yesterday I found and installed it.  It was
> > remarkably easy to install!  I loaded the configuration file from my
> > old kernel and then just make && make install and it worked!  I didn't
> > even have to edit /boot/grub/menu.lst!
>
> Are you sure you're running it if you didn't have to edit grub?  Does
> `uname -r` agree with the new version you just installed?

I went through dmesg and stuff and I'm totally positive.

-- 
========== GCv3.12 ==========
GCS d-(++) s+: a? C++ UL+>++++ P+
L++ E--- W+(+++) N++ o? K? w--- O? M+
V? PS- PE+ Y-(--) PGP- t+++ 5? X R tv-- b+
                DI+++ D+ G e* h- !r !y
========= END GCv3.12 ========

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Lord Sauron]

On 5/25/06, Daniel da Veiga <danieldaveiga@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/25/06, Lord Sauron <lordsauronthegreat@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've found (after much exploration) that there is a archive:
> > /portage-20060123.tar.bz2
>
> Simply a portage snapshot, maybe the one you used to install Gentoo in
> the first place? Take a look at the date and tell me I'm wrong.

Okay, the date is when I installed Gentoo.  You're right.

> > This has - to the best of my knowledge - all the ebuild headers or
> > whatever for everything.  I know I can un-tar this and all, however, I
> > want portage to use it in its uncompressed state, just to speed things
> > up.  I'm not burning for hard drive space, so a little more speed
> > would be great.
>
> Of course, it is a portage snapshot, it has a whole compressed portage
> tree, used to install, or update portage when using alternative
> methods for those (like me) that lack the capacity to use remote
> RSYNC.

Forgive my ignorance, but what is RSYNC?

> > However, I have no idea where to start to try and configure portage to
> > reflect a change like this.  I've read the man pages for ebuild and
> > emerge several times over without finding any hints, so I was thinking
> > someone on this list would know.
>
> There's no "change" and there's no such feature. If you take a look at
> /usr/portage, you'll notice that is has all "portage related" stuff
> there, a snapshot is decompressed there when you install (correct me
> if I'm wrong, but you installed using the Gentoo Installer, didn't
> you? if you had a complete experience of Gentoo install, you would
> know that by now, that's why I strongly advice new users to AVOID THE
> INSTALLER). If you sync once in a while, it is updated. Portage is not
> kept compressed.

Yeah, well this new Gentoo user wouldn't have gotten past partitioning
my hard drive without the installer.  I know it does let less
experience people - like myself - into the community of vastly more
experienced Gentoo users, however, I also think it's been a great tool
for learning more about Linux.

> > I also think that there's another file, /metadata.tar.bz2, which I
> > think is portage-related.  If possible I'd like to uncompress that as
> > well.
>
> Oh, this one was a good choice, metadata is used by portage, but if
> you take a look at /usr/portage/metadata, it is uncompressed there
> too, and that is what portage uses.

So any portage slowness now is just because...  yeah, I really should
look into this, because I see no reason why portage should be running
as slow as it is.

> > I think this is the cause of a slow portage because everything takes a
> > long time to start going, then it's just fine.  It takes about as long
> > to start going as it does to open the archive
> > /portage-20060123.tar.bz2 - conincidence?  I think not!
>
> But it is. That's because of caching, not because it uncompress
> everything every time and compress it again later, that would be
> stupid (forgive my language).
>
> >
> > I also get the bonehead award: there was a new kernel sitting on my
> > hard drive and just yesterday I found and installed it.  It was
> > remarkably easy to install!  I loaded the configuration file from my
> > old kernel and then just make && make install and it worked!  I didn't
> > even have to edit /boot/grub/menu.lst!  Dang...  I got done and said
> > "that was easy."  I think I'm really getting the hang of all this!
>
> You have run an "emerge -u world" and it got the kernel sources, you
> have no special needs and so the default configuration fit your need,
> compiling kernels is EASY, making them work, that's a hard one.

It booted, so I'm perfectly happy.  It's spitting out coldplug errors
right now, so I'm going to be hammering out some more settings, but it
still boots and runs just fine, so I can't complain.

> You sincerely must be booting from your old kernel and your
> /usr/src/linux link must be pointing at your old sources, else you
> would have some problems and probably would have to recompile,
> reconfigure some stuff, because after make and all, you should copy
> the image to /boot and, if necessary, change the grub.conf (menu.lst)
> to point at the right file.

I ran make && make install.  I'm absolutely positive I'm running the
new kernel because I've looked in /boot and it's there, and I've
looked to check which kernel is actually running and it's the new one.
 The symlink in /usr/src is still pointing to the old kernel because I
haven't bothered to change that yet, but I'll do it very soon.
Especially since I gave in and unmasked YaKuake.  I love Yakuake!

> See the Kernel upgrade guide at Gentoo.org for more info.

I think I got it right the first time, which is ample reason for
celebration as far as I'm concerned.

-- 
========== GCv3.12 ==========
GCS d-(++) s+: a? C++ UL+>++++ P+
L++ E--- W+(+++) N++ o? K? w--- O? M+
V? PS- PE+ Y-(--) PGP- t+++ 5? X R tv-- b+
                DI+++ D+ G e* h- !r !y
========= END GCv3.12 ========

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Lord Sauron]

On 5/25/06, Thomas Kirchner <lists@halffull.org> wrote:
> * On May 25 16:44, Daniel da Veiga (gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org) wrote:
> > (correct me if I'm wrong, but you installed using the Gentoo Installer,
> > didn't you? if you had a complete experience of Gentoo install, you
> > would know that by now, that's why I strongly advice new users to AVOID
> > THE INSTALLER)
>
> Good point, Daniel.  I totally forgot about the installer because I've
> never even looked at it, but you're right - the only way someone could
> miss that is if they used the installer or if someone else installed
> Gentoo for them.
>
> That said, I must reiterate the sentiment - avoid the installer like the
> plague.
>
> (Sorry, installer project folks.  I just don't agree with it.)
>
> To the original poster, and to anyone else who has used the installer,
> please do the list and yourselves a favor - read the guides, learn your
> system.  I don't mean this to be rude in any way, but you'll get much
> more benefit out of Gentoo that way.

I'm learning Gentoo as fast and as much as I can!  I've fixed many
problems by myself that you haven't heard about because I managed to
fix them myself.  I'm not as idiotic as some, but I'm not at all
familiar with portage and that's why I'm asking: I'm a hardened
apt-get veteran, but with portage I'm still learning, which is why I
ask.

-- 
========== GCv3.12 ==========
GCS d-(++) s+: a? C++ UL+>++++ P+
L++ E--- W+(+++) N++ o? K? w--- O? M+
V? PS- PE+ Y-(--) PGP- t+++ 5? X R tv-- b+
                DI+++ D+ G e* h- !r !y
========= END GCv3.12 ========

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Alexander Skwar]

Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
> On Friday 26 May 2006 04:12, Lord Sauron wrote:
>> sorry for my sin.  I didn't know about eix.
>>
>> On 5/25/06, Bo Ørsted Andresen <bo.andresen@zlin.dk> wrote:
>> > Friday 26 May 2006 01:00 skrev Lord Sauron:
>> > > If it's not, then I really need to ask why on earth portage takes so
>> > > long to just index and search packages that took apt-get much less
>> > > time to work with. I don't think it should be this slow. I'm not
>> > > even talking about compile-times - I know and expect those to be slow,
>> > > but just raw package searching and stuff is not that fast.
>> >
>> > Do like the rest of us. emerge eix and use that for searching. Make sure
>> > to run update-eix everytime you have sync'ed portage or better yet, use
>> > eix-sync to sync portage.
>> >
>> > --
> 
> or better, install esearch. It is as fast as eix, and it comes with esync.
> 
> So instead of emerge sync AND update-eix, you just run esync.

Sory, I fail to see the advantage.

eix comes with eix-sync, which will do a emerge --sync and update-eix.

> Has the additional advantage, that it lists all new and updates packages, when 
> the sync is finished.

You don't know eix, do you? Because, what you list here as an "advantage"
is no advantage, as eix does the same.

Alexander Skwar
-- 
economist, n:
	Someone who's good with figures, but doesn't have enough
	personality to become an accountant.
do
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 513 bytes --]

On Fri, 26 May 2006 07:48:30 +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote:

> > Has the additional advantage, that it lists all new and updates
> > packages, when the sync is finished.
> 
> You don't know eix, do you? Because, what you list here as an
> "advantage" is no advantage, as eix does the same.

Also, unless this have changed dramatically, eix's database update is
*much* faster than that of esearch - seconds vs. minutes.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

... Never say anything more predictive than "Watch this!"

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 511 bytes --]

On Fri, 26 May 2006 09:21:42 +0930, Iain Buchanan wrote:

> >  I didn't even have to edit /boot/grub/menu.lst!
> 
> Are you sure you're running it if you didn't have to edit grub?  Does
> `uname -r` agree with the new version you just installed?

make install symlinks the new kernel to vmlinuz and the previous one to
vmlinuz.old. If grub.conf uses these names, you never need to edit it
when installing a new kernel.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Like Entropy, bugs can only be created, not destroyed.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[leszek]

> Forgive my ignorance, but what is RSYNC?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rsync
basically, portage use rsync to update the information on packages
(ebuilds) in /usr/portage (with emerge --sync)


> If anything, this is a indicator that I need to try and contribute to
> the portage project...  at least contribute as much as I'm able.
you should try the ~x86 version of portage which has many improvements:
$ echo "sys-apps/portage ~x86" >> /etc/portage/package.use
$ emerge portage

you should also know that there is an alternative package manager which
will maybe replace portage in the future: paludis.
It is still in early development so use it at your own risk.
http://paludis.berlios.de/

you can find more info on portage on the new gentoo development guide:
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[leszek]

oops there was a little typo:

> $ echo "sys-apps/portage ~x86" >> /etc/portage/package.use
should be:
$ echo "sys-apps/portage ~x86" >> /etc/portage/package.keywords


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Alexander Skwar]

Arnau Bria wrote:
> On Fri, 26 May 2006 08:28:49 +0100
> Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> make install symlinks the new kernel to vmlinuz and the previous one
>> to vmlinuz.old. If grub.conf uses these names, you never need to edit
>> it when installing a new kernel.
> 
> Does it control if my /boot partition is mounted?

"make install" doesn't mount /boot.

Alexander Skwar
-- 
God isn't dead, he just couldn't find a parking place.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Hemmann, Volker Armin]

On Friday 26 May 2006 07:48, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
> > On Friday 26 May 2006 04:12, Lord Sauron wrote:
> >> sorry for my sin.  I didn't know about eix.
> >>
> >> On 5/25/06, Bo Ørsted Andresen <bo.andresen@zlin.dk> wrote:
> >> > Friday 26 May 2006 01:00 skrev Lord Sauron:
> >> > > If it's not, then I really need to ask why on earth portage takes so
> >> > > long to just index and search packages that took apt-get much less
> >> > > time to work with. I don't think it should be this slow. I'm not
> >> > > even talking about compile-times - I know and expect those to be
> >> > > slow, but just raw package searching and stuff is not that fast.
> >> >
> >> > Do like the rest of us. emerge eix and use that for searching. Make
> >> > sure to run update-eix everytime you have sync'ed portage or better
> >> > yet, use eix-sync to sync portage.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >
> > or better, install esearch. It is as fast as eix, and it comes with
> > esync.
> >
> > So instead of emerge sync AND update-eix, you just run esync.
>
> Sory, I fail to see the advantage.
>
> eix comes with eix-sync, which will do a emerge --sync and update-eix.
>

ok, but still less to type ;)

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Bo Ørsted Andresen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 163 bytes --]

Friday 26 May 2006 17:51 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin:
> ok, but still less to type ;)

But esearch is more than twice as long as eix... ;)

-- 
Bo Andresen

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Lord Sauron]

On 5/25/06, Daniel da Veiga <danieldaveiga@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/25/06, Iain Buchanan <iaindb@netspace.net.au> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-05-25 at 18:20 -0300, Daniel da Veiga wrote:
> >
> > > Anyway, the OP is using genkernel (wether it likes/knows it or not)...
> >
> > This doesn't look like genkernel:
> >
>
> It doesn't have to look, he used the Gentoo installer, and so, it IS GENKERNEL.

It's not genkernel.  I don't use genkernel.  I do *not* like genkernel.

> > >  I loaded the configuration file from my
> > > old kernel and then just make && make install
> >
> > to use genkernel, you have to call genkernel.  If he's typing make &&
> > make install, then he's just using the plain old kernel makefile.
>
> That if you do a manual install, the installer use it, or better, if
> you choose it will use the same kernel as the livecd, that is, voilá,
> genkernel. Try it, its pretty cool.

Most settings from the original install are gone because I'm pretty
nuts about customizing things.

-- 
========== GCv3.12 ==========
GCS d-(++) s+: a? C++ UL+>++++ P+
L++ E--- W+(+++) N++ o? K? w--- O? M+
V? PS- PE+ Y-(--) PGP- t+++ 5? X R tv-- b+
                DI+++ D+ G e* h- !r !y
========= END GCv3.12 ========

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Lord Sauron]

On 5/26/06, leszek <leszek@skynet.be> wrote:
> > Forgive my ignorance, but what is RSYNC?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rsync
> basically, portage use rsync to update the information on packages
> (ebuilds) in /usr/portage (with emerge --sync)
>
>
> > If anything, this is a indicator that I need to try and contribute to
> > the portage project...  at least contribute as much as I'm able.
> you should try the ~x86 version of portage which has many improvements:
> $ echo "sys-apps/portage ~x86" >> /etc/portage/package.use
> $ emerge portage

Just a question, but there's got to be a reason why it's still in ~x86.

-- 
========== GCv3.12 ==========
GCS d-(++) s+: a? C++ UL+>++++ P+
L++ E--- W+(+++) N++ o? K? w--- O? M+
V? PS- PE+ Y-(--) PGP- t+++ 5? X R tv-- b+
                DI+++ D+ G e* h- !r !y
========= END GCv3.12 ========

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Hemmann, Volker Armin]

On Friday 26 May 2006 18:13, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> Friday 26 May 2006 17:51 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin:
> > ok, but still less to type ;)
>
> But esearch is more than twice as long as eix... ;)

I am using search less, than syncing, so still a win, and it is only 
esea<tab> ;)

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 482 bytes --]

On Fri, 26 May 2006 10:02:25 -0700, Lord Sauron wrote:

> > you should try the ~x86 version of portage which has many
> > improvements: $ echo "sys-apps/portage ~x86"
> > >> /etc/portage/package.use $ emerge portage
> 
> Just a question, but there's got to be a reason why it's still in ~x86.

Yes, it's less than 30 days old. ~arch does not mean unstable, it means
still-in-testing.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

WinErr 014: Keyboard locked - Try anything you can think of.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Alexander Skwar]

Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
> On Friday 26 May 2006 18:13, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
>> Friday 26 May 2006 17:51 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin:
>> > ok, but still less to type ;)
>>
>> But esearch is more than twice as long as eix... ;)
> 
> I am using search less, than syncing, so still a win, and it is only 
> esea<tab> ;)

Which is still 5 characters compared to 3 characters for eix :)

Alexander Skwar
-- 
Bizoos, n.:
	The millions of tiny individual bumps that make up a basketball.
		-- Rich Hall, "Sniglets"
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Hemmann, Volker Armin]

On Friday 26 May 2006 21:28, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
> > On Friday 26 May 2006 18:13, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> >> Friday 26 May 2006 17:51 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin:
> >> > ok, but still less to type ;)
> >>
> >> But esearch is more than twice as long as eix... ;)
> >
> > I am using search less, than syncing, so still a win, and it is only
> > esea<tab> ;)
>
> Which is still 5 characters compared to 3 characters for eix :)
>
but eix-sync is still longer than esync (8 to 5) ;)

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 445 bytes --]

On Sat, 27 May 2006 00:25:53 +0200, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:

> but eix-sync is still longer than esync (8 to 5) ;)

alias es="eix-sync" cuts it down to two, for anyone sad enough to care...
or you could run it from cron.

BTW how many characters have you typed in your emails to make the point
that one program's name saves you 0.8s per day in typing time? ;-)


-- 
Neil Bothwick

2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Hemmann, Volker Armin]

On Saturday 27 May 2006 00:43, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 27 May 2006 00:25:53 +0200, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
> > but eix-sync is still longer than esync (8 to 5) ;)
>
> alias es="eix-sync" cuts it down to two, for anyone sad enough to care...
> or you could run it from cron.
>
> BTW how many characters have you typed in your emails to make the point
> that one program's name saves you 0.8s per day in typing time? ;-)

a day?

luckily I don't sync every day ...

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Alexander Skwar]

Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
> On Friday 26 May 2006 21:28, Alexander Skwar wrote:
>> Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
>> > On Friday 26 May 2006 18:13, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
>> >> Friday 26 May 2006 17:51 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin:
>> >> > ok, but still less to type ;)
>> >>
>> >> But esearch is more than twice as long as eix... ;)
>> >
>> > I am using search less, than syncing, so still a win, and it is only
>> > esea<tab> ;)
>>
>> Which is still 5 characters compared to 3 characters for eix :)
>>
> but eix-sync is still longer than esync (8 to 5) ;)

Nah, it's 5 to 5, so eix-sync is NOT longer than esync...

eix-<tab>

So, at best, eix is as bad as esearch, but normally eix is
faster to use - in every aspect.

Alexander Skwar
-- 
"May your future be limited only by your dreams."
-- Christa McAuliffe
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 345 bytes --]

On Sat, 27 May 2006 08:16:02 +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote:

> > but eix-sync is still longer than esync (8 to 5) ;)
> 
> Nah, it's 5 to 5, so eix-sync is NOT longer than esync...

I really think you guys should read this page :)

http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/cron-guide.xml


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Everything's back to normal. Damn.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Steven Susbauer]

On Sat, 27 May 2006, Neil Bothwick wrote:

> On Sat, 27 May 2006 08:16:02 +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote:
>
> > > but eix-sync is still longer than esync (8 to 5) ;)
> >
> > Nah, it's 5 to 5, so eix-sync is NOT longer than esync...
>
> I really think you guys should read this page :)
>
> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/cron-guide.xml
>
>
>

Long story short, sudo echo "emerge --sync 1>/dev/null 2>&1" >
/etc/cron.daily/portsync, sudo chmod 755 /etc/cron.daily/portsync

Assuming you're on vixie-cron at least.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Alexander Skwar]

Steven Susbauer wrote:

> Long story short, sudo echo "emerge --sync 1>/dev/null 2>&1" >
> /etc/cron.daily/portsync, sudo chmod 755 /etc/cron.daily/portsync

How will this update either the eix or the esearch databases?

Alexander Skwar
-- 
I haven't been married in over six years, but we had sexual counseling
every day from Oral Roberts!!
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Iain Buchanan]

On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 20:23 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Fri, 26 May 2006 10:02:25 -0700, Lord Sauron wrote:
> 
> > > you should try the ~x86 version of portage which has many
> > > improvements: $ echo "sys-apps/portage ~x86"
> > > >> /etc/portage/package.use $ emerge portage
> > 
> > Just a question, but there's got to be a reason why it's still in ~x86.
> 
> Yes, it's less than 30 days old. ~arch does not mean unstable, it means
> still-in-testing.

In fact, since portage is on a continuous update-and-improvement move,
it will _always_ have a version in ~x86.  I run completely ~x86, and
even unmask some hard-masked packages (like gnome-2.14 used to be)
manually, and I haven't had any major issues.  The secret is to update
regularly.  If you run ~x86 and update monthly or less frequently, you
run the risk of multiple problems snowballing on you.

Nevertheless, if you have any reason to keep your system stable,
standard disclaimer applies: stay away from ~x86.  Just cause it works
for me, doesn't mean it always will.

cya,
-- 
Iain Buchanan <iaindb at netspace dot net dot au>

Whip me.  Beat me.  Make me maintain AIX.
	-- Stephan Zielinski

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Iain Buchanan]

On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 08:25 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:

> Also, unless this have changed dramatically, eix's database update is
> *much* faster than that of esearch - seconds vs. minutes.

I've heard that argument before, and I don't know why some people see
that behaviour - esearch only takes seconds for me...
-- 
Iain Buchanan <iaindb at netspace dot net dot au>

You should avoid hedging, at least that's what I think.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Alexander Skwar]

Iain Buchanan wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 08:25 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> 
>> Also, unless this have changed dramatically, eix's database update is
>> *much* faster than that of esearch - seconds vs. minutes.
> 
> I've heard that argument before, and I don't know why some people see
> that behaviour - esearch only takes seconds for me...

Are you really talking about *esearch* or about eupdate (or
what's it called)?

*esearch* is fast for me as well - but the update was so slow,
that I now finally dumped it.

Alexander Skwar
-- 
You have all eternity to be cautious in when you're dead.
		-- Lois Platford
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Bo Ørsted Andresen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 357 bytes --]

Saturday 27 May 2006 13:42 skrev Iain Buchanan:
> I've heard that argument before, and I don't know why some people see
> that behaviour - esearch only takes seconds for me...

It's not the esearch binary versus the eix binary where there is a big 
difference. It's eupdatedb which takes a very long time compared to 
update-eix.

-- 
Bo Andresen

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Lord Sauron]

On 5/27/06, Bo Ørsted Andresen <bo.andresen@zlin.dk> wrote:
> Saturday 27 May 2006 13:42 skrev Iain Buchanan:
> > I've heard that argument before, and I don't know why some people see
> > that behaviour - esearch only takes seconds for me...
>
> It's not the esearch binary versus the eix binary where there is a big
> difference. It's eupdatedb which takes a very long time compared to
> update-eix.

Is this getting to the point of ferocity of the legendary emacs vs. vi
wars I've heard so much about?

At this rate, I'm inclined to recommend Kuroo to all of you.  I've
been kicking the tires in on it, and it's really quite good.

http://kuroo.org/

app-portage/kuroo

-- 
========== GCv3.12 ==========
GCS d-(++) s+: a? C++ UL+>++++ P+
L++ E--- W+(+++) N++ o? K? w--- O? M+
V? PS- PE+ Y-(--) PGP- t+++ 5? X R tv-- b+
                DI+++ D+ G e* h- !r !y
========= END GCv3.12 ========

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Thomas Kirchner]

* On May 27 11:29, Lord Sauron (gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org) wrote:
> At this rate, I'm inclined to recommend Kuroo to all of you.  I've
> been kicking the tires in on it, and it's really quite good.

I have a feeling that, given people who extensively discuss the merits of 
esearch vs. eix, you're not going to convince them to use a portage 
frontend ;)

(PS - eix all the way - it also has customizable formatting and more 
powerful expressions)

Tom
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Thomas Kirchner]

* On May 25 21:45, Lord Sauron (gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org) wrote:
> I'm learning Gentoo as fast and as much as I can!

Cool!  I hope you like it as much as the others here - it's a great 
system for a lot of uses.

> I've fixed many problems by myself that you haven't heard about because 
> I managed to fix them myself.  I'm not as idiotic as some, but I'm not 
> at all familiar with portage and that's why I'm asking: I'm a hardened
> apt-get veteran, but with portage I'm still learning, which is why I
> ask.

I wasn't trying to be rude, and you're certainly not idiotic - I just 
think it's to everyone's benefit to read the docs.  Gentoo has very good 
documentation.

Tom
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Lord Sauron]

On 5/28/06, Thomas Kirchner <lists@halffull.org> wrote:
> * On May 27 11:29, Lord Sauron (gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org) wrote:
> > At this rate, I'm inclined to recommend Kuroo to all of you.  I've
> > been kicking the tires in on it, and it's really quite good.
>
> I have a feeling that, given people who extensively discuss the merits of
> esearch vs. eix, you're not going to convince them to use a portage
> frontend ;)

Just trying to change the subject before the debate becomes a flame war.

> (PS - eix all the way - it also has customizable formatting and more
> powerful expressions)

I don't care, so long as it works.  Right now for small jobs eix seems
to work, and so be it!

-- 
========== GCv3.12 ==========
GCS d-(++) s+: a? C++ UL+>++++ P+
L++ E--- W+(+++) N++ o? K? w--- O? M+
V? PS- PE+ Y-(--) PGP- t+++ 5? X R tv-- b+
                DI+++ D+ G e* h- !r !y
========= END GCv3.12 ========

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Lord Sauron]

On 5/28/06, Thomas Kirchner <lists@halffull.org> wrote:
> * On May 25 21:45, Lord Sauron (gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org) wrote:
> > I'm learning Gentoo as fast and as much as I can!
>
> Cool!  I hope you like it as much as the others here - it's a great
> system for a lot of uses.

It's really nice.  I like it a lot, however, I still think I need to
find a way to use distcc with my faster windows box - compiling stuff
on a pentium-m is excrutiatingly painful!

Yeah, Gentoo's worderful, just a little difficult to use at times if
you're not a seasoned Linux guru.

> > I've fixed many problems by myself that you haven't heard about because
> > I managed to fix them myself.  I'm not as idiotic as some, but I'm not
> > at all familiar with portage and that's why I'm asking: I'm a hardened
> > apt-get veteran, but with portage I'm still learning, which is why I
> > ask.
>
> I wasn't trying to be rude, and you're certainly not idiotic - I just
> think it's to everyone's benefit to read the docs.  Gentoo has very good
> documentation.

I just seem to find them hard to find!  Look carefully for a link on
the Gentoo home page to the (excellent) Gentoo Wiki.  Not there - at
least that I can find.

Gentoo's got some great docs... just a little hard to find 'em.  That's all.

And trust me, I read many man pages before firing off this email.  I
did my homework ; )

-- 
========== GCv3.12 ==========
GCS d-(++) s+: a? C++ UL+>++++ P+
L++ E--- W+(+++) N++ o? K? w--- O? M+
V? PS- PE+ Y-(--) PGP- t+++ 5? X R tv-- b+
                DI+++ D+ G e* h- !r !y
========= END GCv3.12 ========

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: Now Know Why Portage Is So Slow

[Bo Ørsted Andresen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 461 bytes --]

Monday 29 May 2006 22:55 skrev Lord Sauron:
> It's really nice.  I like it a lot, however, I still think I need to
> find a way to use distcc with my faster windows box - compiling stuff
> on a pentium-m is excrutiatingly painful!

I haven't actually tried this but in case you haven't noticed a howto on 
gentoo-wiki [1]. It does seem to contain some good references too.

[1] http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Distcc_server_on_Windows

-- 
Bo Andresen

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]