On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 3:07 AM, Gerald Pfeifer <ger...@pfeifer.com> wrote: > On Mon, 23 May 2011, Nicola Pero wrote: >> Yes ... on the other hand, this does not address the other issue, which >> is the amount of disk space that you need to actually uncompress the >> tarballs :-( >> >> Unpacking gcc-4.6.0.tar.xx requires about 600 MB. Unpacking >> gcc-core-4.6.0.tar.xx >> requires about 150 MB. It's a big difference. > > Hmm, I just see that Joseph now activated this change which I find > unfortunate, since... > >> Maybe you could reduce the number of tarballs, but without going to the >> extreme of having just one. Eg, you could keep the testsuite (expands >> to approx 150MB) as a separate tarball, and probably Java (due to its >> size, again expands to approx 150MB) as a separate tarball too, while >> merging everything else into a single tarball (expanding to approx 300 >> MB). It may a reasonable compromise. > > ...at least having the testsuite and Java separate makes a lot of sense. > > The vast majority of users does not need the former and the latter is > on the verge of becoming practically irrelevant. As one datapoint, the > entire FreeBSD Ports Collection has a single(!) port relying on GCJ. > > > Also, changing this for older release branches as happened now does > cause all sorts of fun (for dubious definitions of this word) for > distribution packagers. :-(
Does it? > Joseph, may I ask to reconsider and at least keep the testsuite and > Java separate? The separate testsuite I always found a bit odd as it only includes gcc/testsuite but not the testsuites in the various target libraries. So I'd rather have the testsuite not be split out. For libjava I would argue to split out only libjava/classpath which is what we drop in (in a slightly modified form?) from elsewhere. So splitting that would eventually make sense (maybe even with making java also compile w/o that classpath dir). Richard. > Gerald >
