Re: Bloated package file (Was: Re: ITP: mencal -- A menstruation calendar)
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 04:18:13PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> 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.
I don't like the way Packages in handled. That's what the problem is
and not necessarly the rest of dpkg.
> > 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'm referring the the trend in the industry when it comes to hardware
req. For example, you can't find a new game with a lower min. req.
MS Windows has also bloated beyond of what I would consider
efficient. True, not all programs are suited for a low end machine, but
at least the base should be.
> I think you provided the wrong solution in your mail: not accepting
> mencal. IMHO the real solution is making apt/dpkg better.
Yes, but the camel goes off on the straw that broke its back and not
the stuff that's already there!
- Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: