Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Enrico Weigelt <weigelt@×××××.de>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Slimming down the portage tree [WAS: Assigning bugs to treecleaners]
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 16:54:18
Message-Id: 20060627164932.GB30497@nibiru.local
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Assigning bugs to treecleaners by Raphael Marichez
* Raphael Marichez <falco@g.o> schrieb:

> IMHO this seems a good idea. The portage tree is growing every week, > every month, and it doesn't really suit for the very little systems > (embedded linux) nowadays. Furthermore, with the old 2.0-portage, > the syncing and caching had become really long. > So this project sounds sane. It's rather new, isn't it ?
Why can't we just move the patches and other files besides the ebuilds somewhere else ? Why can't they be downloaded on-demand ? If portage was written in some other language than python (ie. java), I would have fixed this even before even writing this mail. It could be so easy: * the whole portage tree is available via some fast download protocol, ie. http (perhaps w/ additional md5 checks). * before passing the files to the patch command, it is checked whether they are there, or better: look beyon a list of prefixes (ie. first the portage tree itself and last the download cache) if they could be found. if not found, fetch'em and use the destination location. * people who don't wanna have all patches sync'ed down, just add another exlude regex and are done with it. cu -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service phone: +49 36207 519931 www: fax: +49 36207 519932 email: contact@×××××.de cellphone: +49 174 7066481 --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list