[oe] [RFC} glib-2.0 cleanup

[Chris Larson]

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Chris Larson <clarson at kergoth.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Chris Larson <clarson at kergoth.com>
> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko <denis at denix.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 02:11:54PM -0800, Khem Raj wrote:
> >> >> > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer
> >> >> > <mickey at vanille-media.de> wrote:
> >> >> > > Am Sonntag, den 28.02.2010, 20:39 +0100 schrieb Frans
> Meulenbroeks:
> >> >> > >> We have 26 glib-2.0 recipes (and 8 native ones). (see ls below)
> >> >> > >> Only a few versions are used (see also the grep below)
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> for glib-2.0:
> >> >> > >> "2.12.12"
> >> >> > >> "2.16.4"
> >> >> > >> "2.18.3"
> >> >> > >> "2.20.3"
> >> >> > >> "2.22.1"
> >> >> > >> "2.22.4"
> >> >> > >> "2.6.4"
> >> >> > >> "2.8.6"
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> for glib-2.0-native:
> >> >> > >> "2.16.1"
> >> >> > >> "2.18.0"
> >> >> > >> "2.22.1"
> >> >> > >> "2.22.4"
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> Both include the last two versions
> >> >> > >> Proposal is to remove all versions that are not used.
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> How do people feel about this?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Sounds good to me, althoug I'd recommend not removing them but
> just
> >> >> > > moving them out of sight, i.e. in an 'old' folder. That way we
> could
> >> >> > > please both the lets-keep-everything-no-matter-how-rotten and
> also
> >> the
> >> >> > > lets-strive-for-few-high-quality recipes.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > FWIW I like the idea of having 'obsolete' recipes so moving them to
> >> >> > recipes/obsolete may not be so bad.
> >> >>
> >> >> +1 on this one, since we already have recipes/obsolete in BBMASK by
> >> default
> >> >> and it will reduce parse time for obsoleted recipes. And git-mv does
> a
> >> nice
> >> >> enough job of preserving commit history...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > To clarify, git-mv is no different than a git rm + git add.  It's the
> >> > analysis tools like git diff-tree/log that know how to identify a
> >> copy/move
> >> > in a commit.  :)
> >>
> >>
> >> so git mv will also increase our repo size then ?
> >
> >
> > What?
>
> because of git add I thought... alright you might have meant the
> behavior but not operation



Removing a file and adding it in another location does absolutely nothing to
repository size.  The blob object for the file is exactly the same, the only
question is whether that blob is referenced by a given tree object or not.
-- 
Christopher Larson
clarson at kergoth dot com
Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus
Maintainer - Tslib
Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics