On Dec 17, 2007 7:36 PM, Thufir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:38:30 -0200, Raphael wrote:
>
>
> > I believe that a good solution would be evolving Portage to use
> > different forms of storage, like databases or even LDAP. In a home
> > desktop, you could use SQLite, whic
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:38:30 -0200, Raphael wrote:
> I believe that a good solution would be evolving Portage to use
> different forms of storage, like databases or even LDAP. In a home
> desktop, you could use SQLite, which is light weight. In a Office
> enviroment, you could use a larger da
On Dec 17, 2007 5:53 AM, Alexander Skwar <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Relson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I
> > suspect C++ runs somewhat faster, but that's not the issue here.
>
> Is that actually true (especially for the Portage case)? I'd
> suspect that portage sometimes tends to be
David Relson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I
> suspect C++ runs somewhat faster, but that's not the issue here.
Is that actually true (especially for the Portage case)? I'd
suspect that portage sometimes tends to be slow, because of
the myriad of files it has to deal with. So it's I/O which is
slo
4 matches
Mail list logo