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

Re: Packaging _still_ wasteful for many large packages

On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 10:05:01AM +0100, Michael Neuffer wrote:
> Quoting Steve McIntyre (steve@einval.com):
> > In article <[🔎] 20040216210207.GC1586@tintin> you write:
> > >On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:33:23AM +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > >> 
> > >> Yes, good point. I'll make sure to check if the packages I'm looking
> > >> at are in woody before posting bugs.
> > >
> > >I think that you should also check that they are not single-arch (such 
> > >as eagle), as splitting such packages would only bloat the Packages file 
> > >with no gain for the mirrors.
> > 
> > So why is Eagle a large i386-only package with i386 binaries in
> > /usr/share? This is ridiculous - surely that's a bug in and of itself!

> Pehaps because you might want to share /usr/share or at least parts of that 
> amongst several machines in a network ?

Or not.  This is a null argument, it's no more difficult to share such
files when they're in their *proper* location than it is when they're in

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: