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

Packaging _still_ wasteful for many large packages

<sigh> I posted about this in April 2002 and this was clearly ignored
by many people at the time. I posted a bug against evolution that was
dropped to wishlist so as not to hold up the woody release and has
since _also_ been ignored. We have a lot of packages which are _very_
wasteful in how they are packaged. 

Large amounts of data / translations / scripts do not belong in
/usr/share in a binary package - they should be split out into common
packages that all the arch-specific packages can depend on. Putting
all this data into all the binary packages impacts on disk space and
bandwidth, both for central servers and all the poor mirror admins
aout there.

I've written a trivial shell script (attached) that I've run against
my local mirror to look for all large .deb files (>10MB) and check how
much of each of those debs lives in /usr/share. Results at


shortly. I'm listing any non-all binary package that has > 1MB of
stuff in /usr/share. There's potentially a couple of GB of waste
here. There's also some worrying instances where two different arches
have different sizes for the /usr/share component for the same version
of the same package!

I'm considering posting bugs against packages in the list asking for
more sensible package splits. Comments?

Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
"C++ ate my sanity" -- Jon Rabone

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: