On 8 Aug., 02:45, Volker Braun <[email protected]> wrote: > We are shipping > 300mb of compressed sources, I don't think we should be > concerned with the size of autotool-generated scripts.
Before 'patch' was a requirement (i.e., included into Sage), for at least some spkgs the copies of a patched 'configure' made up a fair amount of the spkg size. But even if we only ship and apply patches, those to autotools-generated files frequently still get huge. Keeping changes "automatically made" (to generated files) in our Mercurial history -- forever! -- doesn't make sense to me. The respective files in patches/ often vanish with the next upstream upgrade. And IMHO the ratio of the size of vanilla source to Sage's Mercurial repo for an spkg matters, not the overall growth to the Sage source tarball. > In fact, I would > argue its better to use newer autotools than some ancient version just > because you want to save some disk space. Not just because; autoreconf'ing with newer versions can cause other trouble, requiring further changes to upstream's sources. Ceterum censeo we should support and use 'xz' instead of or in addition to 'bzip2'. -leif -- -- To post to this group, send an email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
