Am Mittwoch, den 16.09.2009, 18:05 +0200 schrieb Marc - A. Dahlhaus [ Administration | Westermann GmbH ]: > Am Donnerstag, den 17.09.2009, 01:45 +1000 schrieb Allan McRae: > > Marc - A. Dahlhaus [ Administration | Westermann GmbH ] wrote: > > > Am Mittwoch, den 16.09.2009, 16:18 +1000 schrieb Allan McRae: > > > > > >> Marc - A. Dahlhaus [ Administration | Westermann GmbH ] wrote: > > >> > > >>> Am Dienstag, den 15.09.2009, 23:14 +1000 schrieb Allan McRae: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> repo-remove... but I am assuming you mean some automated tool to > > >>>> remove > > >>>> "useless" deltas? Not yet, and I doubt there will be until someone > > >>>> starts using deltas in a repo and finds the need to code one. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> Well, i rise my hand then and look into it as we use deltas quite > > >>> heavily lately here. > > >>> > > >>> > > >> That would be great. From memory, pacman does not use a chain of deltas > > >> if the total download is greater than 90% of just downloading the full > > >> package. That is probably a good criteria to use to in order to decide > > >> which deltas to remove. > > >> > > > > > > Actually first i got confused as repo-remove is documented to take a > > > pkgname as param to remove the whole package (including deltas) from the > > > repo. To use the deltapackage-filename as option to remove only that > > > delta doesn't fitted well into that documentation. I'll try to add this > > > to the man page and usage outputs during my work on this topic... > > > > > > I'd like to add a -d|--delta option to repo-add to create the delta > > > between the current package and the one to be added. > > > > > > For option parsing i plan to make usage of getopt (it is already used by > > > makepkg so it shouldn't be a problem). > > > > I will fully read your proposal later, but I want to flag that makepkg > > does not use getopt anymore but its own bash parser. This was because > > of portability issues. I also notice that the reference to getopt at > > the top of makepkg has not been removed... > > Thanks for pointing that out. > I only did a quick look at the outputs of a recursive grep for getopt but > missed that it only found it in some comments...
As makepkg shebangs for /bin/bash, why don't we use the getopts buildin of bash in the first place, was there a reason to not use it? To make usage of it could be a reduction in code size (will look into it if it's desired) and also would not be a portability issue IMO. Marc
