On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 20:01 +0100, John Mylchreest wrote: > For the record, there is a bug open for this. (#64009) > Personally, I'm not keen on the idea. > the only way which we can do this is by detecting which arch we are > installing the sources, for, which immediately means many installs of > USE=minimal are not the same.
I'm the reporter of the above mentioned bug (which for the record was /only 1 year old/ September 14. I love the response time :-) ) I was just made aware of this discussion, so sorry about the late response. I really can't see the problem with several installs being dissimilar. > There are plenty of other reasons I can go into, but if anyone feels > strongly to push this change, then feel free to reply with justification > as to why. Technical info to back it up as well please :) The only real difficulty I can see is that the kernel-devs sometimes pull includes from other arcs. This will cause compile errors, and under no circumstances any runtime problems. If the use flag also comes with a warning that use is on your own peril, and support is not given. Too bad for the people ignoring the warning. If we find includes from wrong trees, this should be reported upstream, and we actually gain a valuable tool for reporting some lesser errors in the kernel. If for some reason some other package should need this arch specific stuff, I can not see how this should yield any other result than a "clean" compile error. If someone could give a counter-example please enlighten me. I have my own implementation of this in the kernel-2.eclass. For the cross-platform issue, it is implemented by requiring each arch to specify it's needed arch specific directories. If none is specified, the use flag has no effect. As for the space saving effect which is the _only_ benefit, this is quite a significant one if one's system is like mine a 2GiB system, and a single source takes about 250MiB. The space saving effect is close to 50MiB per source, about 2.5% of the entire system. > On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 20:17 +0200, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > > On Thursday 08 September 2005 20:10, solar wrote: > > > Perhaps you can simply just take advantage of tar's > > > --exclude=/-e options in the unpack() function of ebuild.sh when > > > USERLAND == GNU > > tar --exclude/-e is supported by both bsdtar and gtar. > > -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
