| 1 |
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:21:49 -0800 Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 01:35:32AM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
| > It is widely perceived that Gentoo has a huge problem with slacker |
| 5 |
| > archs cluttering up the tree and making maintainers' work harder. |
| 6 |
| > Clearly, something needs to be done about this. |
| 7 |
| > |
| 8 |
| > I think the first step is to establish what all the problem |
| 9 |
| > architectures are. We all know that mips is by far the worst |
| 10 |
| > offender, but by how much? Rather than speculating wildly, I |
| 11 |
| > decided to make use of adjutrix and wc to find out. So, here we |
| 12 |
| > have a table showing just how much mips is a slacker arch: |
| 13 |
| |
| 14 |
| Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Exactly my point. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
| > As expected, supporting minority archs is leading to tree-wide bloat |
| 19 |
| > and huge initial rsync times for users. Clearly something has to be |
| 20 |
| > done to protect Gentoo from those useless minority archs! I mean, |
| 21 |
| > how many users do we *really* have using amd64 or x86? |
| 22 |
| |
| 23 |
| Actually digging into the data rather then doing the "lies, damn |
| 24 |
| lies, and statistics" approach shows a pattern of mips having a large |
| 25 |
| % of their stable packages lagging the others. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Which isn't at all relevant when it comes to the question of causing |
| 28 |
tree bloat. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 32 |
Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org |
| 33 |
Web : http://ciaranm.org/ |
| 34 |
Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ |
Archives