[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: dpkg flex-based status file parser, for 35% speedup

Goswin von Brederlow writes ("Re: dpkg flex-based status file parser, for 35% speedup"):
> [multiarch explanation]

Ah, I see.  Yes, I can see how that would be a problem.  The situation
is slightly awkward already because the format permits Package: to
appear very late and you don't really know what you're doing until you
see it.

> If you need a more detailed description of dependencies for multiarch
> and resolving them I can make you some pictures and text.

I think really if you (by which I mean the multiarch guys) want to
make these kind of fairly fundamental changes to our core tools, you
ought to have a clearly laid out design document already.

Obviously it's fine for you to be experimenting with different
approaches without any kind of documentation or whatever and I'd
encourage that, but of course the development of the deployed system
can't really stand still because it makes life a bit more difficult
for radical experiments.

I think debian-devel might be a better place to have a conversation
about the status, design and future of multiarch.

I'm sorry to be negative.  I can see that it might be awkward for you,
but I think in the long run the new arrangements might even be easier
for you.

> Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> > Goswin von Brederlow writes:
> >> 35% speedup in 1% of the total time spend in dpkg? Is this the right
> >> place to optimize? I would have thought optimizing the *.list files
> >> would be more important. :)
> >
> > It makes `dpkg --status <package>', `dpkg -l ...', etc. 35% faster.
> > It's true that it doesn't help much when you're doing a big
> > installation run but speeding up general queries is very worthwhile I
> > think.
> Worthwile, no argument. Note the smiley.

Right.  I'm not offended.  But I do think there was a point behind
what you were saying which deserved an answer.

I don't pay much attention to smileys really because they seem often
to be just randomly peppered over text without really any meaning at
all.  Not that I'm saying you did that but it seems easier just to
take what you say at face value, as a constructive observation.


Reply to: