On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 10:07:44PM +0200, Arsen Arsenović wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On Friday, 30 September 2022 02:36:05 CEST William Hubbs wrote:
> > I don't know for certain about a vendor tarball, but I do know there
> > are instances where a vendor tarball wouldn't work.
> >
On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 12:49:02PM -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 7:53 AM Florian Schmaus wrote:
> >
> > On 30/09/2022 02.36, William Hubbs wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 06:31:39PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > >>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> >
On Wed, 2022-09-28 at 17:28 +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> > I would like to continue discussing whether we should entirely >
> > deprecate
> > EGO_SUM without the desire to offend anyone.
> >
> > We now have a pending GitHub PR that bumps restic to 0.14 [1].
> > Restic > is
> > a very popular
On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 04:53:39PM +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> On 30/09/2022 02.36, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 06:31:39PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> >>> 2.) the number of EGO_SUM entries exceeds 1000 and a Gentoo
Hi All,
This doesn't directly affect me. Nor am I familiar with the mechanisms.
Perhaps it's worthwhile to suggest that EGO_SUM itself may be
externalized. I don't know what goes in here, and this will likely
require help from portage itself, so may not be directly viable.
What if portage had
Hi,
On 2022/09/30 16:53, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> jkroon@plastiekpoot ~ $ du -sh /var/db/repos/gentoo/
>> 644M /var/db/repos/gentoo/
>>
>> I'm not against exploding this by another 200 or even 300 MB personally,
>> but I do agree that pointless bloat is bad, and ideally we want to
>> shrink
Hi,
When the size of the repo is considered too big maybe we can revisit the option
of having the portage tree distributed as a compressed sqashfs image.
$ du -hs /var/db/repos/gentoo
536M.
$ gensquashfs -k -q -b 1M -D /var/db/repos/gentoo -c zstd -X level=22
On 28/09/2022 23.23, John Helmert III wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 05:28:00PM +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote:
I would like to continue discussing whether we should entirely deprecate
EGO_SUM without the desire to offend anyone.
We now have a pending GitHub PR that bumps restic to 0.14 [1].
On 30/09/2022 02.36, William Hubbs wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 06:31:39PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2022, Florian Schmaus wrote:
2.) the number of EGO_SUM entries exceeds 1000 and a Gentoo developer
maintains the package
3.) the number of EGO_SUM entries exceeds 1500 and a
On 30/09/2022 16.36, Jaco Kroon wrote:
Hi All,
This doesn't directly affect me. Nor am I familiar with the mechanisms.
Perhaps it's worthwhile to suggest that EGO_SUM itself may be
externalized. I don't know what goes in here, and this will likely
require help from portage itself, so may not
> On 30 Sep 2022, at 15:53, Florian Schmaus wrote:
>
> On 30/09/2022 02.36, William Hubbs wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 06:31:39PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2022, Florian Schmaus wrote:
2.) the number of EGO_SUM entries exceeds 1000 and a Gentoo developer
On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 7:53 AM Florian Schmaus wrote:
>
> On 30/09/2022 02.36, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 06:31:39PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> >>> 2.) the number of EGO_SUM entries exceeds 1000 and a Gentoo
Hey,
On Friday, 30 September 2022 02:36:05 CEST William Hubbs wrote:
> I don't know for certain about a vendor tarball, but I do know there
> are instances where a vendor tarball wouldn't work.
> app-containers/containerd is a good example of this, That is why the
> vendor tarball idea was
13 matches
Mail list logo
