[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

disk space saving?



On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 09:53:56PM +0100, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> > Yes, but if it is no more work, why not do it. And also, you get the
> > benefit of not needing the non native code supporting autobuilders.
> I don't really care if it would be more work. It is too many package.
> Cameleon is about 16 and it is enough and maybe too much.

Well, hopefully this week end I can look at my packages and also at
cameleon. Anyway I need to know from you, Jerome, if you are contrary
just because it's a lot of work that you consider not-so-useful or for
some other reasons.
In other words: have you any problem if I perform the needed changes on
the cameleon package?

[ for the reason why I support the native/byte splitting see below ]

> I really think that it is turning into a disk space _obsession_.

<snipped a lot of good arguments against disk space obsession>

I agrre with all your arguments atainst disk space obsession, disk space
is really not a problem.

Anyway I'm in favour of the byte/native splitting because it can really
avoid a lot of problems related to autobuilder. Consider that most of
the architecture which doesn't have a native code compiler are also the
ones that have a long autobuilder queue. Moreover many times I had the
need to ask on a porter list to rebuild a package which for strange
reasons was not considered for the building, ecc ...

The fewer autobuilders we need to 'disturb' to rebuild our packages, the
better.

My 0.02 EUR,
Cheers.

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli  -  undergraduate student of CS @ Uni. Bologna, Italy
   zack@cs.unibo.it | ICQ 33538863 | http://www.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
 "I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not
 sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!" -- G.Romney

Attachment: pgpL6DFcP2pV4.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: