Re: Stop archive bloat: 47MB gmt-coast-full_19991001-1.deb
On Sun, Oct 24, 1999 at 10:45:41PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> Sami Dalouche <debian@ifrance.com> writes:
>
> ...
> > I think we should keep so many packages because this is one of the elements
> > which makes the debian distro better than the other but we shouldn't put all
> > the packages in the same place.
> > I think we should first make new sections and subsections and sort all of
> > the actually present packages into them. But we must really think a lot
> > to these sections and make them as most significative as we can.
> > for example, we shouldn't put all graphics related packages in the diretory
> > graphics but we should do a thing like this :
> >
> > * media
> > - graphics
> > - viewer (e.g. electric eyes)
> > - editors (e.g. Gimp)
> > - libs
> > - [...]
> > - sound
> > - editor
> > - mixer
> > - libs
> > - [...]
> >
> > We should allow symlinking packages into other sections if they can do many
> > things. For example, Imagemagick is an image editor but his concept makes
> > from him a great image viewer. So, I think we should put the .deb in
> > media/graphics/editors and symlink it to media/graphics/viewer.
>
> I think thats something that should be carried in the Package.gz file
> and the control.tar.gz of a package, but not in the directory
> structure. It will be much harder to find a package and to sort needed
> packages and unneeded packages.
It's a possibility too.
>
> I think there should be a split between required, standard, optional
> that shows up in the directory structure. That way mirrors could
> stop mirroring optional if space is a constrain.
I think that if we split between priorities, we should add MORE priorities
like
* REQUIRED : only base packages that are really necessary to boot and use a
minimal debian
* STANDARD : we should add here some packages that aren't by default
installed but that are needed to use properly debian but without the
software to developp software (like bsdmainutils, bzip2....)
* USEFUL : here, we shouldn't add ALL the normal packages but packages
that are often needed on a system that the X window system, TeTeX, SGML
tools, standart developpment software to be able to compile a kernel and
other C/C++ software, a Java VM, .... but not the weird developpment
packages that allows programming in unknown programming languages or do very
particulary things related to high level science or other things I don't
understand....
We should put the mail transport agent here too.
The DEbian development tools (deb packaging ... ) should be placed here/
* OPTIONAL : ALL USEFUL packages but that are useful to less people like
Gnome & KDE software, unused window managers, ...
* STUFF : We should put here all the unecessary to nearly everyone software
like bible documentation, or
Of course, these sections and their contains should be discussed but I think
your idea is cool !
>
> Creating subdirs as you describe won´t help reducing the size but
> makes it more complicated. Also sorting would be difficult, i.e. how
> do you easily list all packages that are viewers, as the menu system
> would need to do.
The maintainer should do that. They could add their software in all the
section of a list that their software is able to provide. When a user thinks
a software should be added to another section, he reports a bug report
against the software.
>
> > So, when we will a proper directory structure, we will be able to go to the
> > next step :
> > Determining which packages have the same goal as others. We can for example
> > see that there are many mixers available in the sound section. We should
> > determine the best [ or the prefered ] mixer for X and the best mixer for
> > the console. We should do the same for all packages in all sections. I know
> > there would be many conflicts, but when it's too deep, we could add both of the
> > packages in the main section. I think particulary to Apache vs Roxen. This
> > debate would never finish, so it means that both are the best and both of
> > them must be added to the main section. In other words, main would mean
> > "THE BEST SOFTWARE" and by best, I mean the most powerful, not the
> > beginner's software. Inn would fit in main while the others news transport
> > system wouldn't.
> > I think a lot of clean in the editor section must be done too ! VI and (X)Emacs
> > should be the only intheractive editor present in main !
>
> Which vi, I think debian has 3 or 4 of them? What about joe, ae,
> mcedit, zile? That will just cause a big flame war. I use zile for
> speed and xemacs for power and if they aren´t in main I will be pretty
> disapointed. At the end of the flamewar all editors will be in main
> again, so we can leave them there to start with.
>
Yes, you're right, my idea has some problems.
> Your ideas are only usefull for sorting in console-apt/dselect to aid
> the users decisions. They should be reflected in the Packages.gz files
> and not in the directory structure.
But being able to browse through the directory to find a software could be
great too :-) (It's often what I do to search for all software that does a
paricular job)
>
> > For the rest I've not more ideas on the moment, but I'm sure that we can do
> > a largely better distro !
> >
> > BTW, I think that we should add another distro ! Yes, really ! Stable /
> > Unstable is too hard : You have the choice in having stable but very
> > out-dated software and in having updated software but which are too much
> > updated to be stable !
>
> Thats another point and its very true. The release cycle of debian is
> to slow.
>
> I would like to have a distro called testing, where package go to when
> uploaded (or Incomming as its called now). People could then test
> them. The package "popularity-contest" would then record if the
> package is used and mail that to the debian server. If a Package was
> used for some time (maybe a week) by a few people (maybe 5) without
> bugreports coming in, it would automatically be moved to unstable
> (after testing that all packages it depends on are moved already).
>
> This method would ensure that unstable isn´t as experimental as it is
> now. There wouldn't be any packages that don´t even install or don´t
> work correctly in an easy to detect way, e.g. segfault on startup. It
> would greatly increase the quality of unstable and would enable many
> people to use unstable on production systems.
>
Yes, great ! Exactly what I'd like, exept that in unstable, stable + cvs
software should be present, not only cvs.
> > I think we should make another distro which would contain the stable version
> > of every software, not the cvs version or the version which was released 2
> > years ago !
> >
>
> May the Source be with you.
> Goswin
And May the power be with Debian !
Bye,
Sami
--
DDDD EEEEE BBBB II AAAAA NN N LL II NN N U U X X
DD D E__ B__B II A___A N N N LL II N N N U U XX
DD D E B B II A A N N N LL II N N N U U XX
DDDD EEEEE BBBB II A A N NN LLLLL II N NN UUUUU X X
Reply to: