| 1 |
On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 23:52, Daniel Robbins wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi guys, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I realize that this is a bit late to bring this up, but I wanted to |
| 5 |
> suggest an optimized organization for our x86 CDs. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Traditionally, we've had 5 disc 1's and 5 disc 2's. What I'm proposing |
| 8 |
> is that we move to 1 disc 1 and 5 disc 2's. There would be one disc 1 |
| 9 |
> for all our sub-architectures. This would help the store in that we'd |
| 10 |
> have fewer unique CDs to produce. It would also remove about 2GB from |
| 11 |
> the mirrors. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Here's how disc1 would be organized (I'm using shorthand names for the |
| 14 |
> files): |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> (runtime data, about 75 MB) |
| 17 |
> /stages |
| 18 |
> x86-stage1.tar.bz2 |
| 19 |
> x86-stage3.tar.bz2 |
| 20 |
> i686-stage3.tar.bz2 |
| 21 |
> pentium3-stage3.tar.bz2 |
| 22 |
> pentium4-stage3.tar.bz2 |
| 23 |
> athlon-xp-stage3.tar.bz2 |
| 24 |
> /snapshots |
| 25 |
> portage.tar.bz2 |
| 26 |
> /distfiles |
| 27 |
> 225MB of sources (everything needed to go from |
| 28 |
> stage1 to stage3 and to boot the system, plus kernel sources, |
| 29 |
> kernel-dependent ebuild sources, and if there's room, X sources. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
This layout really appeals to me (not that my opinion matters, but |
| 33 |
anyway). I think this is a great way to leverage the common aspects of |
| 34 |
each sub architecture, and leads to less overall bloat and maintenance. |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Seemant Kulleen |
| 37 |
Developer and Project Co-ordinator, |
| 38 |
Gentoo Linux http://dev.gentoo.org/~seemant |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x3458780E |
| 41 |
Key fingerprint = 23A9 7CB5 9BBB 4F8D 549B 6593 EDA2 65D8 3458 780E |
Archives