| 1 |
Pete Gavin wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Hi, |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I was wondering, wouldn't it be better to keep patches that are |
| 6 |
> gzipped in the distfiles directory, since cvs doesn't really work well |
| 7 |
> w/ binary files? I mean, I figure the only patches that should even be |
| 8 |
> managed by cvs are ones we create ourselves, and under normal |
| 9 |
> circumstances, those wouldn't be terribly large, so they could go w/o |
| 10 |
> being gzipped. And since most people update their portage tree using |
| 11 |
> rsync -z, they would be compressed before being sent over the network, |
| 12 |
> so that shouldn't cost too much extra bandwidth. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
But the cvs tree comes with the next source-cd and then saving space is |
| 16 |
neccesarry. |
| 17 |
I try to avoid making my own patches and prefer sed's for minor |
| 18 |
modifications. |
| 19 |
Maybe we can move the big patches to distfiles and put them in |
| 20 |
gentoo-sources on ibiblio. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
achim~ |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Pete |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> _______________________________________________ |
| 28 |
> gentoo-dev mailing list |
| 29 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o |
| 30 |
> http://www.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev |
Archives