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

[Daniel Goller]

the point of the serious thread was to look for the .tar.bz2, .tar.gz, 
.tbz2, .tgz2 and possible other binary files together with the files you 
summed up

Jason Rhinelander wrote:

> 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
>
>

--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list