On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 10:31:52 AM UTC-4, leif wrote: 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.
Well back then the by far biggest spkg was a couple of binary builds of fortran compilers for osx weighting in at 30mb. As long as the compressed configure scripts stay less than a MB or so you are barking up the wrong tree. Even if thats a sizeable fraction of one of the smaller spkgs. But I agree that autogenerated files shouldn't be checked into the repository. Thats why I said that it would be nice to have some script support to copy the autotool-generated files in/out of the source dir. Not just because; autoreconf'ing with newer versions can cause other trouble, requiring further changes to upstream's sources. Autotools aren't exactly a fast-moving target. In fact I haven't yet encountered a case where an autoreconf required me to update the sources. You do get useful new features, though; E.g. in cddlib I regenerated everything with an autotools version that knows about libtool. On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 10:31:52 AM UTC-4, leif wrote: > > 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
