[RFC] Repository layout change / Zmiana układu repo

[Radoslaw Zielinski]

Jan Rekorajski <baggins at sith.mimuw.edu.pl> [14-05-2007 00:55]:
> On Sun, 13 May 2007, Radoslaw Zielinski wrote:
>> Patryk Zawadzki <patrys at pld-linux.org> [13-05-2007 23:09]:
>>> On 5/13/07, Radoslaw Zielinski <radek at pld-linux.org> wrote:
>>>> Patryk Zawadzki <patrys at pld-linux.org> [13-05-2007 21:58]:
[...]
>>>>> What are the problems?
>>>> Off the top of my head:
>>>> - excessive metadata (CVS/Entries is just a few dozen bytes per file)
>>> Disk space is cheap.
>> That's no reason for wasting it.  Two copies + metadata in case of
>> SVN is over the line (one copy with SVK).
> Come on, the repo will not magically grow by enormous amounts,
[...]

Now (for SPECS): 12k files.
With new layout: 12k files + 12k directories + 12k CVS/ + 3x12k CVS/*.
SVN: 12k files + 12k directories + 12k .svn/ +7x12k .svn/* + copies.

On my (laptop) hardware[1] I see a performance difference.  Big enough
to see it as an issue.

[1] No, I can't build OO and large packages do take time.  But usually
    it's just good enough.

[...]
>> I'll wait for the proponents of the change to provide the `real life
>> issues' which would disappear.  I mean, the ones which can't be solved
>> with bash magic.

> 1) files that belong to more than one package, you either have to _know_
>    the involved packages and keep them synchronized or you will have a mess

It's just a couple of packages, isn't it?  Only relevant for SourceX,
which are fetched from DF anyway.  Files stored in VCS (patches, scripts
or whatever) are (or should be) named as %{name}*.

> 2) orphans, we have ~900 files in SOURCES that don't belong to any
>    package currently

I might be guilty of forgetting to remove some of these myself...  But
then, is it really an issue?  If so, a daily or weekly cronjob can fix
it, can't it?

> 3) guesswork in case you work with more packages at once or with the
>    whole repo - hmm, file adfgasdfgda.patch does belong to what package?

Why would you care?  It's being looked up the other way: package -> *.patch.

> And those were just everyday, common issues.

Honestly: I can't see these as issues.  And certainly not as everyday ones.

-- 
Radosław Zieliński <radek at pld-linux.org>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /mailman/pipermail/pld-devel-en/attachments/20070514/b2aba460/attachment.sig