Re: debsums for maintainer scripts
David Weinehall <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 01:24:58AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:34:10 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis <email@example.com> 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
udebs are neither updateable nor purgeable. They realy are not ment
for being installed on a real system.
A partial exclude for dpkg as wished for by many would be better. One
would tell dpkg to skip extracting /usr/share/doc on a Zaurus