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

Re: debsums for maintainer scripts

On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 01:24:58AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:34:10 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis <asd@suespammers.org> said: 
> > On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 11:11, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> That is but one optimization: we already are suffering from archive
> >> bloat, what about the disk and bandwidth cost of carrying around
> >> the sigs?  And since one rarely needs the md5sums anyway, what is
> >> so wrong with checking against the .deb when needed?
> > I just took an md5sum of every file on my system. Including things
> > like /var and /home that aren't part of packages. It's 13M,
> > uncompressed.  Compressed, it's 3.5M.
> > If we were really worried about archive size, an md5sum is 16
> > octets.  It's hard to see that mattering to overall archive size.
> 	I am (probably) getting a Zaurus for christmas this year. I
>  would like to run Debian on it.  You think that the PDA has gobs of
>  disk space to throw around?

udeb's would probably be better here anyway; the checksums is
not the heaviest load on your Zaurus; dpkg itself, perl, glibc, etc will


Regards: David Weinehall
 /) David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /) Northern lights wander      (\
//  Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel   //  Dance across the winter sky //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    (/   Full colour fire           (/

Reply to: