should we split up the Packages file in main (for woody)

To: Debian Developement Mailinglist <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>
Subject: should we split up the Packages file in main (for woody)
From: ressu@uusikaupunki.fi
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 21:24:17 +0200
Message-id: <20000213212417.F500@zanaga.uusikaupunki.fi>
Mail-followup-to: Debian Developement Mailinglist <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>

ok, lets face it.. the packages file in slink is something like <500K (in i386) in potato its >800K.. i think it might be time to start splitting it up... 

we could try the following, 
lets create a master source file for each distribution, user then could have a choice of download places for those directories. in addition we would split the packages file, to include just the directory it is in (ie. libs, base, devel...) in that way we could reduce the amount that users have to download... (well those who run unstable atleast)

Comments?
-- 
get a life, get the second one free...

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: should we split up the Packages file in main (for woody)
  - From: Jacob Kuntz <jpk@cape.com>
- Re: should we split up the Packages file in main (for woody)
  - From: Wichert Akkerman <wichert@cistron.nl>
- Proposal (was: should we split up the Packages file in main (for woody))
  - From: Christian Hammers <ch@lathspell.westend.com>
- Re: should we split up the Packages file in main (for woody)
  - From: Colin Walters <levanti@verbum.org>
- Re: should we split up the Packages file in main (for woody)
  - From: Sven Rudolph <sr1@loom.sax.de>

Prev by Date: to whoever uploaded mutt 1.0.1.0-*
Next by Date: Re: netbase 3.16-10 and TCP SYN cookies being enabled by default
Previous by thread: Re: to whoever uploaded mutt 1.0.1.0-*
Next by thread: Re: should we split up the Packages file in main (for woody)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread