Re: [gentoo-dev] A few modest suggestions regarding tree size

[Jason Rhinelander]

I actually quite appreciated ciaranm's response - it shows he's not 
buying into the whole "Gentoo is rice" deal, and I think that's a very 
good thing for Gentoo and Gentoo's users.

PLEASE be more scientific than "I think it's like 25%".  Let's get it 
straight just how much we're talking about, before throwing out things 
like "pretty major" or "like 25%".

First, everything in portage:

find . \( -not -path './distfiles/*' \) | perl -lne '$s+=-s; $c++; 
END{print "$c files, $s bytes total"}'
100120 files, 403235992 bytes total

Now, all the diffs/patches in the files/ directories:

find . -path '*/*/files/*.patch' -or -path "*/*/files/*.diff" | perl 
-lne '$s+=-s; $c++; END{print "$c files, $s bytes total"}'
5082 files, 13142437 bytes total

So, by removing all of these, you end up removing 5% -- not 25% -- of 
the files from portage, comprising 3% of the space used by a portage 
tree.  Is this really "pretty major"?

-- Jason Rhinelander
-- Gossamer Threads, Inc.


Roman Gaufman wrote:
> I think its wrong for a maintainer to troll like this on the dev
> mailing list -- but then again its ciaranm - he's a joker :)
>
> But seriously, there were some nice ideas in the last few messages,
> and it wasnt 50Kb improvements, but a major drop in file number and
> size, like 25% drop, thats pretty major -- also, it doesnt affect
> developers much in terms of productivity.
>
> Including my idea of syncing based on a changelog, that will reduce
> time to literally less than a second without affecting ebuild
> maintainers at all.
>

--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list