Re: [gentoo-dev] Large files still in files/

[Cory Visi <merlin@gentoo.org>]

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