Hey Patrick,
I agree, tar.bz2 is the way to go when possible, but I have many
friends on old bsd-based systems and some old linux boxes I must
maintain that don't have bzip2 support. Normally if I know a package I
write is going to need to go on an older system, I'll package it in both
formats,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As those who use yahoo are aware the YCHT protocol has finally been
killed completely. Mangesium will be removed from the tree, as upstream
will not be making any further releases ( I am upstream ). I will p.mask
as long as noone has any objections for
xfsamba was merged into xffm by upstream awhile back, and has been
unmaintained since. It will be removed in 30 days unless someone steps
up to maintain it and fix the bugs it has (bug #127166 for example).
Thanks,
--
Mark Loeser - Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting qa toolchain x86)
email
Dan Armak wrote:
On Saturday 29 April 2006 15:21, Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
The commit marked with @ is a special comit called a 'merge'.
I hope that clarifies the merge tracking part.
You just described what merging is. Svn can do that too with svn merge. But,
if I merge changesets from branch
On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 10:30 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 06:30:23PM +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > We have ~15k .tar.gz in distfiles. ~6500 .tar.bz2, ~2000 others.
> > A short run over 477 distfiles spanning 833M gave me 586M of .tar.bz2 -
> > roughly 30% more efficient
On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 04:52:20PM +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> Unless somebody has a really good reason as to why we should keep the
> external module in portage I will package.mask it in a week from now
> and remove it from portage 30 days later.
I have now package.masked app-laptop/ibm-
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 06:30:23PM +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> We have ~15k .tar.gz in distfiles. ~6500 .tar.bz2, ~2000 others.
> A short run over 477 distfiles spanning 833M gave me 586M of .tar.bz2 -
> roughly 30% more efficient!
> A comparison run with 7zip gave me 590M files, so bzip2 seems t
Hi all,
I had this random idea that many of our distfiles are .tar.gz while more
efficient compression methods exist. So I did some testing for fun:
We have ~15k .tar.gz in distfiles. ~6500 .tar.bz2, ~2000 others.
A short run over 477 distfiles spanning 833M gave me 586M of .tar.bz2 -
roughly 30%
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 12:50:45AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> While we're posting useful links, here's another one from the cairo
> project on switching from CVS to some distributed SCM:
All this talk about switching to a more powerful SCM I can understand
- but what would the purpose of swi
Luca Barbato wrote:
> Alexandre Buisse wrote:
>
>
>>[1] http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/tools-discuss/2006-April/000366.html
>>[2] http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/tools/scm/bzr-eval/
>>[3]
>>http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/tools/scm/dcm_evaluation_mercurial/
>>[4] http://ww
On Tuesday 25 April 2006 08:53, Alin Nastac wrote:
> Lets say a package foo depends on bar, both at compile time and run time.
> Shouldn't DEPEND _and_ RDEPEND of the foo package reflect that
> dependency? I usually set DEPEND="$RDEPEND ..." or vice-versa (depending
> on which is the most demanding
Alexandre Buisse wrote:
>
> [1] http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/tools-discuss/2006-April/000366.html
> [2] http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/tools/scm/bzr-eval/
> [3]
> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/tools/scm/dcm_evaluation_mercurial/
> [4] http://www.opensolaris.org/os/com
Alexandre Buisse wrote:
The opensolaris project has done a similar thing[1].
While we're posting useful links, here's another one from the cairo
project on switching from CVS to some distributed SCM:
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/cairo/2006-February/006255.html
Thanks,
Donnie
--
gen
13 matches
Mail list logo
