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

Re: Bloated package file (Was: Re: ITP: mencal -- A menstruation calendar)



On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 10:52:52PM -0600, Adam Majer wrote:
> 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 :)

My message was actually more referring to things like base not being
in a good state etc.

Are the algoritms used in apt/dpkg ever optimized? Maybe that could
also be a problem.
 
> 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]

Why is the "corporate way" requiring 64-128 MB? 

I think you provided the wrong solution in your mail: not accepting
mencal. IMHO the real solution is making apt/dpkg better.

Jeroen Dekkers
-- 
Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: jdekkers@jabber.org
Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org
IRC: jeroen@openprojects

Attachment: pgpUSJatzXYbW.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: