Re: Bloated package file (Was: Re: ITP: mencal -- A menstruation calendar)
On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 06:27:11PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 12:08:31PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Additionally, Debian is
> > not very likely to 'collapse under its own weight' for those who are
> > concerned about that.
>
> I think there are some changing needed to let grow Debian in the
> future, woody showed that to use. But I promised not to talk about
> this until woody is released. :)
My suggestion would be to use an efficient disk based database
and dpkg and apt use less than, lets say, 1M ram at any point [for
low end systems]. This will/should be done sometime soon. Maybe
an experimental release is required. I guess I'll have some work
to do soon :)
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]
- Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: