| 1 |
On Thu, 2004-10-14 at 17:05 -0400, Mark Loeser wrote: |
| 2 |
> I agree, this would be a very good policy to put into place. Removing |
| 3 |
> all of the patches from the tree will help to reduce its size, by how |
| 4 |
> much has already been a topic of debate, but it would help regardless. |
| 5 |
> If it doesn't make that big of a difference now, it has the potential of |
| 6 |
> stopping this from becoming a bigger problem in the future. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I know that I have mentioned this before, but having a set of -release |
| 9 |
trees would also alleviate much of this. There would be less reason for |
| 10 |
keeping around so many older ebuilds in the -current tree, as they would |
| 11 |
still be available in the -release trees. The real concern with any |
| 12 |
separation of the tree is how do we keep them all up to date with |
| 13 |
security patches and such. This would still need to be addressed and I |
| 14 |
am still working on a good solution. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> The tree is growing at a very large rate and rsync times are taking a |
| 17 |
> lot longer now than they did for me a year or so ago. Removing all of |
| 18 |
> the patches from the tree will definitely help this, but I think other |
| 19 |
> policies should be more strictly inforced as well. There are some very |
| 20 |
> large files in the tree currently that aren't patches, like enormous |
| 21 |
> Changelogs for a few packages, and also a lot of old ebuilds that are |
| 22 |
> sitting around for some packages. It'd be nice if the tree was kept as |
| 23 |
> clean as possible to keep rsync times down as much as possible. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Perhaps some way of moving the ChangeLog files themselves out of the |
| 26 |
tree and into some other location where they could be pulled as-needed. |
| 27 |
This would be a good place to start, as the ChangeLog is not used by |
| 28 |
portage itself and is only informational for the users and developers. |
| 29 |
The only thing that would need to be changed is the -l option to portage |
| 30 |
would need to be modified to pull the data from the web (or wherever) |
| 31 |
instead of the tree. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
The real problem we run into with almost any solution is to get any real |
| 34 |
gains we have to make drastic changes to the tree which could break |
| 35 |
older releases and people's installs that haven't been keeping up to |
| 36 |
date. As a good example, when we make changes to portage, they have to |
| 37 |
be done incrementally and have to be able to co-exist with the way |
| 38 |
things are currently, and also the way things have been, otherwise we |
| 39 |
risk really causing trouble for many of our users. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 43 |
Release Engineering - Operations/QA Manager |
| 44 |
Games - Developer |
| 45 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives