[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    [gentoo-dev] Slimming down the portage tree [WAS: Assigning bugs to treecleaners]
From:       Enrico Weigelt <weigelt () metux ! de>
Date:       2006-06-27 16:49:33
Message-ID: 20060627164932.GB30497 () nibiru ! local
[Download RAW message or body]

* Raphael Marichez <falco@gentoo.org> schrieb:

> 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 ?

Why can't we just move the patches and other files besides the
ebuilds somewhere else ? Why can't they be downloaded on-demand ?

If portage was written in some other language than python 
(ie. java), I would have fixed this even before even writing
this mail. 

It could be so easy:

* the whole portage tree is available via some fast download
  protocol, ie. http (perhaps w/ additional md5 checks).
* before passing the files to the patch command, it is checked
  whether they are there, or better: look beyon a list of 
  prefixes (ie. first the portage tree itself and last the
  download cache) if they could be found. if not found, fetch'em 
  and use the destination location.
* people who don't wanna have all patches sync'ed down, just
  add another exlude regex and are done with it.
  
cu
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service

  phone:     +49 36207 519931         www:       http://www.metux.de/
  fax:       +49 36207 519932         email:     contact@metux.de
  cellphone: +49 174 7066481
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]