Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Mon, 1 Feb 1999 02:38:38 +0100 (EET) | | From | Marek Habersack <> | | Subject | Re: proper place to discuss kernel 'bloatedness'? |
| |
On Sun, 31 Jan 1999, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > changed files. > > It looks nice in theory, but would probably require creating a protocol to > > serve the config submissions and retrieval of the required files. > > If you are OK with local compiles it can be trivially done via > CVS and skeleton Makefiles (think of *BSD ports). Since we have recursive > make anyway we could do download on demand from make. Actually I think > that it would be useful for normal setup too - s/download/ln(1)/. I'll > try to look at it - make definitely spends way too many time checking > dependencies. Smaller tree would make compiles faster. > Server-side compiles... ;-/ Nah... gcc is waay too memory-thirsty > and several clients will suffocate any server. Unless you have a spare > Beowulf cluster to burn, that is. No, the thought of server-side compiles never crossed my mind :)). The CVS is ok for the first download, but every next download would be done as a diff-only retrieval process. Given the list of the user files, the server could generate a customized patch for that particular user. The diff generation stresses the server a bit, but way less that gcc does, so I guess it would work... regards, marek
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |