| 1 |
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 01:10:24PM -0500, Anthony de Boer wrote: |
| 2 |
> Mark Loeser wrote: |
| 3 |
> > There's also quite a large amount of binary files still in the tree. A |
| 4 |
> > lot of them seem to be compressed patches. I'm not sure what should be |
| 5 |
> > done with those, but I thought putting binary files into the tree was |
| 6 |
> > discouraged unless absolutely necessary. Lots of 4k compressed patches |
| 7 |
> > doesn't seem to be something absolutely necessary. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Tying this to the Portage-tree collection-copyright issue, it might be a |
| 10 |
> good idea for all third-party-sourced patches, with e-mail headers or |
| 11 |
> other such authorship/source/copyright information still intact at the |
| 12 |
> start (and happily skipped by the patch command), to be gzipped and put |
| 13 |
> in distfiles, and the tree itself to be reserved for stuff written |
| 14 |
> specifically for the Gentoo project. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> This does still leave large Gentoo-supplied patches in question; I'm |
| 17 |
> uncomfortable with the idea of us getting *that* far from the upstream |
| 18 |
> sources, though. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I kind of like this idea, however, I think it's idealistic. Patches need |
| 21 |
to be modified very frequently. Especially when we combine multiple |
| 22 |
patches and make them all work with USE flags. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
A great deal of our patches really are written specifically work with our |
| 25 |
ebuilds. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
What is the real percentage of space usage from compressed or uncompressed |
| 28 |
patches? How big of a problem is it? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-Cory |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives