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:
pgp6peQzhk38s.pgp
Description: PGP signature