Subject: Re: pkgsrc reorg
To: Hubert Feyrer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: David Brownlee <email@example.com>
Date: 10/06/2000 10:16:07
On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, David Brownlee wrote:
> > True, but how about putting all the patches into a single file -
> > that would certainly save on inodes and disk fragments... Maybe
> > even gzip it.
Skip the gzip comment - I was getting carried away :)
> have you tried maintaining such a file? When you update a pkg to a new
> version, it's much easier, to apply one patch at a time and see if it
> fails is still needed or included in the new version. There's a reason we
> have the 'one file per patch' rule, and we're not going to sacrifice over
> some optimisation.
I have updated packages and I tend to treat the patches as a
complete set, though I can understand many may find it easier
to apply them individually.
Maintaining patches is eaiser with mkpatches - we should have
a simple tool for applying patches and recording any problem
to help when upgrading. It could even (optionall) stop after
any problem to allow tweaking.
We have 4418 patch-?? files, and 1061 patch-sum files.
That could be reduced to 1061+1061.
All in one file would speed things up and save disk and network
bandwidth, and may well make the RCS logs more useful if anything -
currently adding or removing a patch can result in a patch-?? file
switching to refer to a different source file.
Another (smaller) saving could be reached by putting 'patch-sum'
into 'md5'. This makes more sense if we go to a single patch file
as it would be less clutter in md5.
-- www.netbsd.org: A pmap for every occasion --