On Thursday 14 May 2009 21:20:18 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 14 May 2009 13:17:24 -0600 > > RB <aoz....@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 13:11, Ciaran McCreesh > > > > <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> 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!"
