1 |
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 6:52 AM, behrouz khosravi <bz.khosravi@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> well chromium was just an example. I just think that when there is a version |
3 |
> upgrade, a patch should be enough. |
4 |
|
5 |
For things like backports you're fairly likely to only get a patch. |
6 |
However, for an upstream version change (which chromium seems to have |
7 |
every other week) you're probably going to get a full tarball. |
8 |
|
9 |
> I have read that portage is migrating to git, but I guess I got it wrong, |
10 |
> because I thought that the source codes will be maintained using git too. |
11 |
> However why not? why not use git for source maintenance too? |
12 |
|
13 |
Portage probably will migrate to git at some point, but when it does |
14 |
you'll probably not notice a thing. |
15 |
|
16 |
Gentoo doesn't maintain the source to chromium - upstream does. In |
17 |
some cases Gentoo doesn't even redistribute the source (licensing |
18 |
issues). For chromium Google publishes a tarball on googleapis.com |
19 |
and Gentoo mirrors it. |
20 |
|
21 |
There has been talk about creating some kind of source repository for |
22 |
things like patches/etc, but that isn't going to really change when we |
23 |
distribute patches vs upstream tarballs. Generally speaking upstream |
24 |
tarballs are preferred over patches to keep things simple. With what |
25 |
we do now you know you're basically getting chromium as upstream |
26 |
distributes it. If we were to just mirror chrome-25 and 300 binary |
27 |
diffs to patch it up to the current version nobody could keep track of |
28 |
it all, and while you'd save some space on each upgrade your first |
29 |
install might involve downloading 10GB of diffs unless we went even |
30 |
further and had a variety of full vs incremental files. This has been |
31 |
discussed in terms of having portage on squashfs and just doing it for |
32 |
our own stuff looks to be fairly painful, let alone doing it for every |
33 |
upstream out there. |
34 |
|
35 |
Rich |