| 1 |
On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 20:01 +0100, John Mylchreest wrote: |
| 2 |
> For the record, there is a bug open for this. (#64009) |
| 3 |
> Personally, I'm not keen on the idea. |
| 4 |
> the only way which we can do this is by detecting which arch we are |
| 5 |
> installing the sources, for, which immediately means many installs of |
| 6 |
> USE=minimal are not the same. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I'm the reporter of the above mentioned bug (which for the record |
| 9 |
was /only 1 year old/ September 14. I love the response time :-) ) |
| 10 |
I was just made aware of this discussion, so sorry about the late |
| 11 |
response. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I really can't see the problem with several installs being dissimilar. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> There are plenty of other reasons I can go into, but if anyone feels |
| 16 |
> strongly to push this change, then feel free to reply with justification |
| 17 |
> as to why. Technical info to back it up as well please :) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The only real difficulty I can see is that the kernel-devs sometimes |
| 20 |
pull includes from other arcs. This will cause compile errors, and under |
| 21 |
no circumstances any runtime problems. If the use flag also comes with a |
| 22 |
warning that use is on your own peril, and support is not given. Too bad |
| 23 |
for the people ignoring the warning. |
| 24 |
If we find includes from wrong trees, this should be reported upstream, |
| 25 |
and we actually gain a valuable tool for reporting some lesser errors in |
| 26 |
the kernel. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
If for some reason some other package should need this arch specific |
| 29 |
stuff, I can not see how this should yield any other result than a |
| 30 |
"clean" compile error. If someone could give a counter-example please |
| 31 |
enlighten me. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I have my own implementation of this in the kernel-2.eclass. For the |
| 34 |
cross-platform issue, it is implemented by requiring each arch to |
| 35 |
specify it's needed arch specific directories. If none is specified, the |
| 36 |
use flag has no effect. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
As for the space saving effect which is the _only_ benefit, this is |
| 39 |
quite a significant one if one's system is like mine a 2GiB system, and |
| 40 |
a single source takes about 250MiB. The space saving effect is close to |
| 41 |
50MiB per source, about 2.5% of the entire system. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
> On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 20:17 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: |
| 44 |
> > On Thursday 08 September 2005 20:10, solar wrote: |
| 45 |
> > > Perhaps you can simply just take advantage of tar's |
| 46 |
> > > --exclude=/-e options in the unpack() function of ebuild.sh when |
| 47 |
> > > USERLAND == GNU |
| 48 |
> > tar --exclude/-e is supported by both bsdtar and gtar. |
| 49 |
> > |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
-- |
| 52 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives