1 |
On Monday 07 March 2005 17:57 CET Martin Schlemmer wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, 2005-03-06 at 20:25 +0000, Cory Visi wrote: |
3 |
> > On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 01:10:24PM -0500, Anthony de Boer wrote: |
4 |
> > > Mark Loeser wrote: |
5 |
> > > > There's also quite a large amount of binary files still in the |
6 |
> > > > tree. A lot of them seem to be compressed patches. I'm not sure |
7 |
> > > > what should be done with those, but I thought putting binary files |
8 |
> > > > into the tree was discouraged unless absolutely necessary. Lots of |
9 |
> > > > 4k compressed patches doesn't seem to be something absolutely |
10 |
> > > > necessary. |
11 |
> > > |
12 |
> > > Tying this to the Portage-tree collection-copyright issue, it might |
13 |
> > > be a good idea for all third-party-sourced patches, with e-mail |
14 |
> > > headers or other such authorship/source/copyright information still |
15 |
> > > intact at the start (and happily skipped by the patch command), to be |
16 |
> > > gzipped and put in distfiles, and the tree itself to be reserved for |
17 |
> > > stuff written specifically for the Gentoo project. |
18 |
> > > |
19 |
> > > This does still leave large Gentoo-supplied patches in question; I'm |
20 |
> > > uncomfortable with the idea of us getting *that* far from the |
21 |
> > > upstream sources, though. |
22 |
> > |
23 |
> > I kind of like this idea, however, I think it's idealistic. Patches |
24 |
> > need to be modified very frequently. Especially when we combine |
25 |
> > multiple patches and make them all work with USE flags. |
26 |
> > |
27 |
> > A great deal of our patches really are written specifically work with |
28 |
> > our ebuilds. |
29 |
> > |
30 |
> > What is the real percentage of space usage from compressed or |
31 |
> > uncompressed patches? How big of a problem is it? |
32 |
> |
33 |
> Also the problem is that especially if you have a rapid changing |
34 |
> package, where the patches changes a lot, putting it in distfiles is a |
35 |
> pita, as you have to scp it, then wait an hour to 3 depending on how |
36 |
> lucky you are, and then only commit. And especially if you forgetful |
37 |
> like me, you tend to forget to either come back and commit the new |
38 |
> version/revision, or to copy the new tarball to distfiles ... |
39 |
|
40 |
Didn't this discussion already happen about half a year ago and one of the |
41 |
conclusions was that a possible solution could be a special set of patches |
42 |
server from which those files are pulled on demand? Those servers could |
43 |
even be (some of the) the rsync mirrors. |
44 |
|
45 |
>From a user point of view, this would hopefully have the advantage that the |
46 |
tedious 'emerge sync' runs (which often happen to time out for some reason, |
47 |
might be my internet connection) could be a lot (?) faster as only a |
48 |
percentage of the current tree would me mirrored locally -- the longest |
49 |
taking part of the rsync process is the "generating file list" one. |
50 |
|
51 |
For the servers it could have the advantage that there's less load from |
52 |
rsync -- I guess even if the patches etc were pulled from the same servers |
53 |
via HTTP it would be less load as the files are (a) fetched on demand and |
54 |
(b) it wouldn't use the rsync protocol but plain HTTP. But I don't have |
55 |
any numbers, maybe I'm wrong, and I don't know what additional traffic this |
56 |
would produce. |
57 |
|
58 |
Just 2 cents from the peanut gallery. |
59 |
|
60 |
Cheers, |
61 |
Malte |
62 |
|
63 |
-- |
64 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |