Re: Packaging _still_ wasteful for many large packages
In article <m2n.s.2004021512350722332@mossbank.org.uk> you write:
>Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> writes:
>
>> I'm considering posting bugs against packages in the list asking for
>> more sensible package splits. Comments?
>
>Yes. Before filing any bug report on emacs21* packages, please
>explain what's wrong with them so we can discuss first.
Looking at the contents of emacs21-common_21.3+1-4_alpha.deb, the
first of the emacs21 packages listed, there is a huge amount of stuff
from this binary package installed under /usr/share:
sledge:~/tmp/size-check$ du
8 ./usr/share/emacs/21.3/etc/e
5060 ./usr/share/emacs/21.3/etc
300 ./usr/share/emacs/21.3/lisp/term
496 ./usr/share/emacs/21.3/lisp/play
240 ./usr/share/emacs/21.3/lisp/toolbar
1252 ./usr/share/emacs/21.3/lisp/textmodes
2836 ./usr/share/emacs/21.3/lisp/progmodes
184 ./usr/share/emacs/21.3/lisp/obsolete
260 ./usr/share/emacs/21.3/lisp/language
700 ./usr/share/emacs/21.3/lisp/international
436 ./usr/share/emacs/21.3/lisp/eshell
736 ./usr/share/emacs/21.3/lisp/emulation
1044 ./usr/share/emacs/21.3/lisp/emacs-lisp
532 ./usr/share/emacs/21.3/lisp/calendar
384 ./usr/share/emacs/21.3/lisp/net
724 ./usr/share/emacs/21.3/lisp/mail
2728 ./usr/share/emacs/21.3/lisp/gnus
19440 ./usr/share/emacs/21.3/lisp
7492 ./usr/share/emacs/21.3/leim/quail
1472 ./usr/share/emacs/21.3/leim/ja-dic
8988 ./usr/share/emacs/21.3/leim
33488 ./usr/share/emacs/21.3
0 ./usr/share/emacs/site-lisp
33488 ./usr/share/emacs
1740 ./usr/share/info/emacs-21
1740 ./usr/share/info
24 ./usr/share/man/man1
24 ./usr/share/man
4 ./usr/share/emacs21/site-lisp
4 ./usr/share/emacs21
80 ./usr/share/doc/emacs21-common
80 ./usr/share/doc
35336 ./usr/share
...
If this stuff is arch-dependent, it should not be living under
/usr/share. If it is truly common, we do not need _11_ copies of it in
the archive for every version when one is enough.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
You lock the door
And throw away the key
There's someone in my head but it's not me
Reply to: