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

Re: Packaging _still_ wasteful for many large packages

Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> writes:

> It's interesting that this entire thread neglects the issue of Packages
> file bloat. If we do eventually get a reorganised archive that allows
> per-architecture partial mirroring, then I think that limiting sizes of

Still no details on that one. The amd64 port is blocked by it and
nobody says what is even ment by it.

Also debmirror does a pretty fine job of creating a partial mirror and
debmirror2 is nearing its first release making it even easier and more
complete. So what needs change?

> Packages files and avoiding unnecessary complexity (such as -doc or
> -common packages) will perhaps be more important than saving the minimal
> amount of archive space some of the packages on the posted lists take
> up. Where's the dividing line?

The problem is that every byte not shared is multiplied by 11 (soon
12), extra Packages on the other hand only add a few bytes to the
Packages file. Even if that doubles the number of packages its not
realy more complex. If some guidelines are followed, like always use
-doc and -common suffix for them, frontends can filter them out
nicely. You could even have a list of packages and then select
"install" or "install with docs" for each.

I think getting all packages to use the same suffixes with the same
meaning could make things easier.

Splitting things up also prepares the way for biarch.


PS: Our loved m68k would suffer some from bigger Packages files but
any common modern arch is fast emnough to handle them easily.

Reply to: