Re: Deleting uncompressed Info/Doc files at upgrades
> On Wed, Oct 21, 1998 at 06:57:00PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Rob Browning wrote:
> >
> > > Chris Waters <xtifr@dsp.net> writes:
> >
> <snip>
> > *I* certainly wouldn't call that cleaner -- in fact, I'd refer to it as
> > a major hack. As Manoj has pointed out, dpkg doesn't currently know
> > anything about *types* of files. So you have to implement some
> > mechanism for classifying the files dpkg installs. Which opens up a
> > whole debate about classification that I for one would rather skip if at
> > all possible.
Hmm...
OK. I'm confused.
No. dpkg doesn't know anything about types of files.
So, I want to *tell* dpkg something. I am telling dpkg that files under
/usr/doc are not-functional, and can be compressed at install time.
I am also telling dpkg that files under /usr/man are also OK. This is
because I, the sys-admin, know that the mandb suite of programs knows how
to deal with compressed files.
Ditto /usr/info.
So, if we added to dpkg the capability to mark directories as being
'compressible' or 'ignorable', what is the problem with that?
It seems to me that it gives the ability to save lots of disk space, or
time, for people with different priorities. Is that a bad thing?
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Reply to: