#11246: flint-1.5.0.p5's extraneous #includes break typedef ulong in sys/types.h
---------------------------------------------------+------------------------
   Reporter:  dimpase                              |          Owner:  tbd       
                    
       Type:  defect                               |         Status:  
positive_review               
   Priority:  major                                |      Milestone:  
sage-4.7.2                    
  Component:  packages                             |       Keywords:  cygwin    
                    
Work_issues:                                       |       Upstream:  N/A       
                    
   Reviewer:  Karl-Dieter Crisman, Leif Leonhardy  |         Author:  Dima 
Pasechnik, Jeroen Demeyer
     Merged:                                       |   Dependencies:            
                    
---------------------------------------------------+------------------------

Comment(by dimpase):

 Replying to [comment:65 leif]:
 > Replying to [comment:64 dimpase]:
 > > Replying to [comment:63 leif]:
 > > > If I understand you correctly (having the whole upstream tree under
 revision control), that would heavily increase their sizes.
 > > >
 > >
 > > Really? Why? If I look at my current $SAGEROOT/devel/sage/, I have
 878Mb, while its .hg is 51Mb. And here the fact that this tree has a long
 history must be taken into account.
 >
 > I don't know which files' sizes you've added up there,

 I just ran 'du' command on '$SAGEROOT/devel/sage/', and on
 '$SAGEROOT/devel/sage/.hg'.

 > but, first of all, a [compressed] source tree with meta information will
 obviously always be larger than [a compressed] one without it (even when
 you check out the current versions before calling `spkg-install` rather
 than redundantly shipping them already checked out along with the
 repository), and second, presumably more important, you'd then in addition
 carry all the upstream history, which of course would grow the packages'
 sizes in comparison to what we have now.


 I am not talking about carrying around the whole upstream history, which
 may or may not be available. If upstream upgrades in a clean patch
 fashion, then it's easy to import their patches and carry them on.
 Otherwise we basically would throw the history away, just as we do
 presently, and start anew.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/11246#comment:66>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica, 
and MATLAB

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-trac" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.

Reply via email to