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