Re: How to make Packages file 50% smaller
I suggest splitting off each description into a separate file, like Brian
suggests, and then having dselect et al download descriptions on
demand. That's almost as fast and helps everyone.
EFD1 AC6C 7ED5 E453 C367 AC7A B474 16E0 758D 7ED9
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
GCS/CM>CC/IT d- s:+ a16 C++(++++)>$ UL++++>$ P--- L++>++$ E+ W+(-) N+ o? K? w---()
!O !M !V PS+(++)>+ PE-(--) Y+>+ PGP t+>++ !5 X-- R>++ tv(+) b+(++) DI(+) D++
G>+++ e--> h! !r y>+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
On 3 Mar 2001, Brian May wrote:
> Does this file really *need* to contain long verbose descriptions of
> Just by removing the long description (the short description remains),
> I can cut the compressed file size by over 50%:
>  [snoopy:bam] ~/admin/linux >cat /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.melb.apana.org.au_mirror_debian_dists_potato_main_binary-i386_Packages | gzip | wc
> 3309 19009 828014
>  [snoopy:bam] ~/admin/linux >cat /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.melb.apana.org.au_mirror_debian_dists_potato_main_binary-i386_Packages | grep -v "^ " | gzip | wc
> 1424 8364 384015
> which would have significant benefits for people like my who don't
> have high speed ISDN connections and/or have to pay for bandwidth
> This is becoming more and more important, especially now that apt-get
> can use all stable, testing, and unstable Packages in a useful manner.
> I can't think of any useful role this long description serves to
> apt-get, other then displaying of package information for users (with
> apt-cache), in which case, you could use
> <URL:http://packages.debian.org/$package instead>.
> However, I imagine this might upset some people, so why not split the
> description into a separate file, so you only have to download it if
> you really want it? (perhaps even only for one distribution instead of
> all of them).
> Other proposals in the past to do similar things have failed, or
> require more time for development before they are usable:
> - rsync: uses too much load on the server.
> - rproxy: requires Packages uncompressed, and these may be removed
> from the servers in the future, see #81657. Furthermore I have had
> serious problems with current Debian versions of rproxy, see #83603.
> - rsync friendly gzip: (shows potential; still waiting).
> I think this proposal has the benefit that it is simple, easy to
> understand, and can be achieved without *now* without major changes,
> except perhaps some way to use the separated description file.
> Brian May <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org