[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Do we really need the long package description in dpkg/status for D-I?

(Idea based on discussion for #452273)

On Friday 11 January 2008, you wrote:
> Guillem Jover wrote:
> > There's 278 udebs in the current main Packages file. Each Package-Type
> > field takes 19 bytes, so 5282 bytes of bloat. In comparison the
> > Description field takes 49416 bytes. If you are really concerned about
> > "bloat", maybe you could trim those down instead.
> We are constantly trimming udeb descriptions.
> However, unlike this useless new field, udeb descriptions do have value
> -- they are displayed to the user.

Well, the short description is. But the long description is AFAIK unused in 

How about we just ignore the long description when writing the dpkg status 
file for D-I? AFAICT that would require a smallish patch in the libd-i 
function di_package_parser_write_description in src/package_parser.c.

If we don't want to terminally cripple libd-i for this, it could also be 
done only if some environment variable is set.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: