On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 07:38:14AM +0100, Christian Franke wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:16:40PM +0100, Christian Franke wrote: >>> Many -src packages install files in /usr/src which have no >>> PACKAGE[-VERSION] prefix or substring in file name. This makes it >>> difficult to maintain or cleanup larger /usr/src directories. >>> >>> The attached experimental patch for setup.exe adds option -e, >>> --separate-src-dirs. If specified, each PACKAGE-VERSION-src.tar.bz2 is >>> installed below /usr/src/PACKAGE-VERSION instead. >> If this is really desirable behavior then shouldn't we ask package >> maintainers to fix their packages? I don't see why setup.exe should >> have to know about this. >> > >The patch is a pragmatic approach which works with all existing >packages. It doesn't break anything existing. It would last long time >until all src tarballs would be fixed. > >It is actually difficult to guess the origin of some source files. For >example: > >/usr/src/0.19-data-auto-imports.patch (from flexdll-0.26-1) >/usr/src/blacklist.txt (from ca-cerficates-*) >/usr/src/config-rpath.patch (from some gcc-* ?)
That's not difficult. It's trivial to figure out where these files came from. I still don't understand the need for this. If everyone thinks it's a good idea than why don't we eschew code bloat and make package developers use this technique. Otherwise, unless you inspect the source files, you'll be adding a separate layer of directory to /usr/src for packages that don't need it. cgf layer of directory for
