From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org)
	by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54)
	id 1F7rG5-0007Fr-16
	for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 11 Feb 2006 09:41:37 +0000
Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id k1B9eeMV017716;
	Sat, 11 Feb 2006 09:40:40 GMT
Received: from mail.ineton.ro (mail.ineton.ro [217.156.27.7])
	by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k1B9cMd5003144
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 11 Feb 2006 09:38:22 GMT
Received: (qmail 25707 invoked by uid 210); 11 Feb 2006 11:38:17 +0200
Received: from 217.156.27.36 by hera (envelope-from <mrness@gentoo.org>, uid 201) with qmail-scanner-1.25st 
 (bitdefender: v7.0/2490/258838. spamassassin: 3.1.0. perlscan: 1.25st.  
 Clear:RC:1(217.156.27.36):. 
 Processed in 0.971442 secs); 11 Feb 2006 09:38:17 -0000
Received: from tg-neamt1.ineton.ro (HELO ?217.156.27.36?) (mrness@217.156.27.36)
  by mail.ineton.ro with ESMTPA; 11 Feb 2006 11:38:16 +0200
Message-ID: <43EDB07D.7030907@gentoo.org>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 11:38:05 +0200
From: Alin Nastac <mrness@gentoo.org>
Organization: Gentoo Foundation
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051027)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Manifest2 decision delayed
References: <20060209202543.GE13947@vino.zko.hp.com>	<20060210001559.TA145e8.tv@veller.net>	<1139540735.24775.97.camel@localhost>	<20060210031717.3cc38cc5@snowdrop.home>	<1139584466.28563.1.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <20060210194336.310957e2@snowdrop.home>
In-Reply-To: <20060210194336.310957e2@snowdrop.home>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.92.0.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 boundary="------------enigF866DEB7708835F9445D0B6E"
X-Archives-Salt: 9bd25766-3105-4ffd-85aa-63da1b154527
X-Archives-Hash: 655323152756cbcf1d4657fcb4e6edb0

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enigF866DEB7708835F9445D0B6E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:14:26 -0500 Chris Gianelloni
><wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
>| Interesting, yes... but ebuilds are read by humans and it is necessary
>| to be comprehensible a lot more than the Manifest files are.
>
>Sure. But the comparison would show whether or not it's going to make a
>substantial difference. And if it does, there're other things that can
>be done in the Manifest file that'll save a whole load of space too
>(e.g. using $ to represent $PN, ! to represent files/, * to represent
>ChangeLog and so on, since these characters aren't allowed in any
>filename in the tree).
>
>  
>
When you have thousands of small files (1-4 blocks), the space saved by
removing all unnecessary whitespaces is minimal at best.
Minimizing the number of files is another story. Unifying manifests with
digest files will save a considerably amount of disk space.


--------------enigF866DEB7708835F9445D0B6E
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD7bCCRZBYwhawvi4RAv1rAKC5R0DfTXt2H5MYUCX8X6iv5KbWTQCgt/+Y
vwhUVtAzaWZ9I5AURqtqkkw=
=c1Hx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enigF866DEB7708835F9445D0B6E--
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list