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