[Gnu-arch-users] Re: Are pristine trees really dead?

[Pau Aliagas]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Tom Lord wrote:

>     > Tom, I know it's a lot hell of code, 
> 
> I admit that tla has become too large (~57K LOC in libarch) but I'm
> not so sure than any one component of it counts as a hell of a lot of
> code.

I did not mean to be unpolite, it's just a way of speaking.

>     > but you shouldn't feel too attached to it anymore. If they are
>     > not needed, they are better off for all purposes. It's already
>     > difficult to explain what all the available caches (revlibs,
>     > cachedrevs) are to keep a useless one (pristines).
> 
> I don't think it's useless though I admit it's at this point a mostly
> theoretical belief.  I think they'll remain particularly useful for
> some kinds of automated process.

Well, if you keep it in your mind nobody will kow. I'll try to improve my 
ESP meanwhile :)

>     > I'm all for killing them from the code too unless you are totally 
> opposed 
>     > to it (and have good reasons to convince me ;) I volunteer to rip them 
>     > from the code if you accept it.
> 
> I don't think I would.
> 
> I will accept (and would prefer to review designs-for before code-for)
> setting up default rev-libs automatically, changing the default to
> `get', finer-grain control over greediness, and so forth.

I "get" it :)

What I propose is very simple:
-add a create .arch-cache + make it the default revlib in the make install 
 script.

Later on we can think of pruning processes. tla prune-library?

Pau