On 01/11/2013 01:10 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-01-02 at 17:05 -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
>
>> This command seems to do the trick:
>>
>> $ ls -1 /usr/portage/profiles/updates/ | grep -Ev '(08|09|10|11|12|13)$'
>> 1Q-2004
>> 1Q-2005
>> 1Q-2006
>> 1Q-2007
>> 2Q-2004
>> 2Q-2005
>> 2Q-2006
>>
On Wed, 2013-01-02 at 17:05 -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> This command seems to do the trick:
>
> $ ls -1 /usr/portage/profiles/updates/ | grep -Ev '(08|09|10|11|12|13)$'
> 1Q-2004
> 1Q-2005
> 1Q-2006
> 1Q-2007
> 2Q-2004
> 2Q-2005
> 2Q-2006
> 2Q-2007
> 3Q-2004
> 3Q-2005
> 3Q-2006
> 3Q-2007
> 4Q-2004
On 01/02/2013 02:46 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 08:59 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
>>
>>> gentoo-x86/profiles/updates $ LANG=C ls -1 --sort=time
>>> [long list omitted]
>>
>>> old entries are done in different context (compa
On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 08:59 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Dec 2012, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
>
> > gentoo-x86/profiles/updates $ LANG=C ls -1 --sort=time
> > [long list omitted]
>
> > old entries are done in different context (comparing to 2012):
>
> > - some packages change n
On 12/10/2012 12:10 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
>> I propose that we say, once a year, schedule a tree-cleaning of old
>> updates files. These updates files could be added to a tarball made
>> available for download. That way if they are needed to update a system
>> older than what the main t
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
> gentoo-x86/profiles/updates $ LANG=C ls -1 --sort=time
> [long list omitted]
> old entries are done in different context (comparing to 2012):
> - some packages change names 2 or 3 times
> - slots have different meaning
> moreover:
> - if
On 12/09/2012 09:15 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> No, once they are downloaded, they don't change ever after the quarterly
> rollover which starts a new updates file. Nor do they take up
> significant storage space. They probably take up a higher percentage of
> your fs's inodes than % diskspace.
>
On Sun, 09 Dec 2012 21:15:37 -0800
Brian Dolbec wrote:
> No, once they are downloaded, they don't change ever after the quarterly
> rollover which starts a new updates file.
gentoo-x86/profiles/updates $ LANG=C ls -1 --sort=time
4Q-2012
3Q-2012
1Q-2008
2Q-2012
4Q-2011
1Q-2012
3Q-2011
2Q-2011
1Q
On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 01:52 +0100, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Brian Dolbec wrote:
> > > > remove entries in profiles/updates for tree-cleaned packages...
> > >
> > > What's the advantage of doing that?
> >
> > None
> ..
> > FYI... Currently there are updates files in profiles/updates/
> > dating back t
Brian Dolbec wrote:
> > > remove entries in profiles/updates for tree-cleaned packages...
> >
> > What's the advantage of doing that?
>
> None
..
> FYI... Currently there are updates files in profiles/updates/
> dating back to 2004
Do they take up significant storage space or transfer time, comp
On Sun, 2012-12-09 at 15:10 -0800, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 12/9/12 1:17 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> > Starting from a question by Markos in #gentoo-portage about whether to
> > remove entries in profiles/updates for tree-cleaned packages...
>
> What's the advantage of doing that?
None, it a
On 12/9/12 1:17 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> Starting from a question by Markos in #gentoo-portage about whether to
> remove entries in profiles/updates for tree-cleaned packages...
What's the advantage of doing that?
> I propose that we say, once a year, schedule a tree-cleaning of old
> updates fi
12 matches
Mail list logo
