Re: [gentoo-dev] Assigning bugs to treecleaners
Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 17:54:02 +0200 > Raphael Marichez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> IMHO this seems a good idea. The portage tree is growing every week, >> every month, and it doesn't really suit for the very little systems >> (embedded linux) nowadays. Furthermore, with the old 2.0-portage, the >> syncing and caching had become really long. > > If you want to sync just part of the tree, look into setting '--exclude' > or '--exclude-from' options via PORTAGE_RSYNC_EXTRA_OPTS in make.conf. > See rsync(1) and make.conf(5). Never tried it myself, but it should > work. > https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-2551222.html signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Assigning bugs to treecleaners
> If you want to sync just part of the tree, look into setting '--exclude' > or '--exclude-from' options via PORTAGE_RSYNC_EXTRA_OPTS in make.conf. > See rsync(1) and make.conf(5). Never tried it myself, but it should > work. i'm using it on my laptop and it works very well :) i've saved 320Mo ! but a single decrease of 20% can't compensate for an annual increase of about 10~20% (PS: France wins 3-1 :D ) cheers -- Raphael Marichez aka Falco pgpE6OSSk4a1z.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Assigning bugs to treecleaners
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 17:54:02 +0200 Raphael Marichez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > IMHO this seems a good idea. The portage tree is growing every week, > every month, and it doesn't really suit for the very little systems > (embedded linux) nowadays. Furthermore, with the old 2.0-portage, the > syncing and caching had become really long. If you want to sync just part of the tree, look into setting '--exclude' or '--exclude-from' options via PORTAGE_RSYNC_EXTRA_OPTS in make.conf. See rsync(1) and make.conf(5). Never tried it myself, but it should work. -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Assigning bugs to treecleaners
Michael Cummings wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Alec Warner wrote: I'd prefer if you are going to remove a package and you want treecleaners to do it; either talk to a treecleaners project member on irc or via the alias first, or just assign it to maintainer-needed and CC treecleaners. [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/treecleaners/ I have to admit - I'd never heard of the project until now (so maybe I'm not alone...?). Maybe we should do something once a quarter or so in the GWN listing current projects...? (that's right, i'm recommending the special centerfold issue of the gwn a few times a year ;) http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/38744/focus=38744 ~mcummings -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEoUnUq1ztTp5/Ti4RApyHAKC/Na1gkOvHEGlvNOCJedM58xYCxwCfQjdz 2a2rhpvj0dn7HTZyxGZBrzA= =QctJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Assigning bugs to treecleaners
> > I have to admit - I'd never heard of the project until now (so maybe I'm > not alone...?). same for me (i'm a new dev, but i have been reading and learning www.gentoo.org for a while now :) ) IMHO this seems a good idea. The portage tree is growing every week, every month, and it doesn't really suit for the very little systems (embedded linux) nowadays. Furthermore, with the old 2.0-portage, the syncing and caching had become really long. So this project sounds sane. It's rather new, isn't it ? cheers -- Raphael Marichez aka Falco pgpcFnu8ItlBO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Assigning bugs to treecleaners
As long as it doesn't involve spanky I think we won't lose all our users because they suddenly became blind. Its the first time I've heard of the project as well. I knew that there were a few people going through and removing stuff but... (that's right, i'm recommending the special centerfold issue of the gwn a few times a year ;) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Assigning bugs to treecleaners
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Alec Warner wrote: > I'd prefer if you are going to remove a package and you want > treecleaners to do it; either talk to a treecleaners project member on > irc or via the alias first, or just assign it to maintainer-needed and > CC treecleaners. > [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/treecleaners/ I have to admit - I'd never heard of the project until now (so maybe I'm not alone...?). Maybe we should do something once a quarter or so in the GWN listing current projects...? (that's right, i'm recommending the special centerfold issue of the gwn a few times a year ;) ~mcummings -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEoUnUq1ztTp5/Ti4RApyHAKC/Na1gkOvHEGlvNOCJedM58xYCxwCfQjdz 2a2rhpvj0dn7HTZyxGZBrzA= =QctJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Assigning bugs to treecleaners
I'd prefer if you are going to remove a package and you want treecleaners to do it; either talk to a treecleaners project member on irc or via the alias first, or just assign it to maintainer-needed and CC treecleaners. I don't want a million bugs assigned to treecleaners. The point of the project is to make the tree better by either fixing packages or removing them which means I do need to sit down for about 20 minutes with each package and evaluate whether it's worth it to fix or not (even if you are it's present maintainer and you want it gone). Right now the team is just me, and IMHO I'd rather have a managable set of packages ready to get punted then to have people giving last rites but never removing it, aka making it a pain to manage due to volume. Also see a few guidelines[1] that I threw up on the project page. Also, we are looking for more people to join the project ;) [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/treecleaners/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
