On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 10:44:11AM -0600, Adam Majer wrote: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 04:18:13PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > > > > Are the algoritms used in apt/dpkg ever optimized? Maybe that could > > also be a problem. > > I don't like the way Packages in handled. That's what the problem is > and not necessarly the rest of dpkg. Well, we could fix that and then optimize the algoritms. ;-) > > > As to all the people wanderring why the hell I started this thing > > > for the ITP of the calendar; I guess it's the straw that broke the > > > camel's back. Patato->Woody more that doubled the number of > > > packages right now. It went from fine to horrible upgrade > > > on a 486. Woody+1 has to have much better support for low end > > > systems or we might as well go the "Corporate Way" and have > > > 64-128M req. mem. [or at least sizeof(Packages)<<2] > > > > Why is the "corporate way" requiring 64-128 MB? > > I'm referring the the trend in the industry when it comes to hardware > req. For example, you can't find a new game with a lower min. req. Yes, but you don't want a 2D game in the resolution 320x200 if you can have a 3D game at 1024x768 or higher. :) > True, not all programs are suited for a low end machine, but > at least the base should be. Yes, that's why dpkg and apt should be fixed IMHO. > > I think you provided the wrong solution in your mail: not accepting > > mencal. IMHO the real solution is making apt/dpkg better. > > Yes, but the camel goes off on the straw that broke its back and not > the stuff that's already there! Yes, it's a common thing. If you want to solve a problem you should look at its causes, it's something a lot of people do wrong. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: jdekkers@jabber.org Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: jeroen@openprojects
Attachment:
pgpWx55_eFnKj.pgp
Description: PGP signature