From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0E3A138A1F for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 18:30:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F2EFCE0CD5; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 18:30:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-we0-f171.google.com (mail-we0-f171.google.com [74.125.82.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B50A5E0CCD for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 18:30:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-we0-f171.google.com with SMTP id w61so4483357wes.16 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 10:30:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FXJq4JLpGvxKgmaKZm7MQeCMI1q4aXTXswy+vj2gUgk=; b=q3R17VJA7zQnFhMEHiKSHjJc2pmIT3aPO8JgWCxGP1JutiM857j5DRv5a44sDJJMpG okgq6qYBdokMs+5pN/DaZgogd4IB4DkHqWivC/ilT5rzYiafmNVuDDoyyoahGgIQcjc6 EBwxZv2TeAV45ciqfMbDGFlNV9x/DkjTutp876/P9H6JyRt+BXMtJHpyynED8LB18Hqg OMKP7or/3bssyDT9fxlWN8OA8TZYUCtorcdlGReQcgxAgkJGfsERzdLem5r8mXBC2tki 7KXYVqQF+OtSDvWlXU8vMpn9fj04x4iTt7dD0xzAe+mBNRZejd465xiqOooL38ymPOVW m2RA== X-Received: by 10.180.90.243 with SMTP id bz19mr9616324wib.44.1390761020379; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 10:30:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.20.0.40] (196-210-244-37.dynamic.isadsl.co.za. [196.210.244.37]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id h13sm3827520wjr.22.2014.01.26.10.30.18 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 26 Jan 2014 10:30:19 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52E5543B.4070808@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 20:30:19 +0200 From: Alan McKinnon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably References: <20140126162426.7a6d1f30@falcon.eroen.eu> <52E54920.5010207@gmail.com> <52E54E34.7080709@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <52E54E34.7080709@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: a983272a-e4ee-448c-ab7c-ed5b66921698 X-Archives-Hash: 51397bad69caa6ff4ceb5dd32b40c409 On 26/01/2014 20:04, hasufell wrote: > So, not sure where your optimism comes from. It comes from watching what happens at the end of running emerge, don't read any more into it than that. Especially not optimism, I think you might be projecting your own frustrations. A couple of years ago I used to have to manually resolve blockers about one world update in two. It started becoming a huge PITA especially as the deps are usually easy to solve - if I can look at the screen for a few seconds and figure it out, then software can do the same in milliseconds. Recent portages now do this properly when viewed from a results-only perspective. On my machines, that is what I see happening. That is the ONLY set of FACTS I have to work on; you may have more. I'm willing to give up 4 minutes while emerge runs so I don't have to spend many more minutes right afterwards doing manually the very shit that software is very good at. Whether portage is a complete pile of dogshit software or not is beside the point. Even if it is, my 4 minutes still buys me lots -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckinnon@gmail.com