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

Re: split descriptions Re: PROPOSAL to sarge+1 - Split main in sub-repositories



Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 03:17:30PM +0200, Andrea Mennucc wrote:


There is an HUGE save in downloads. Try the comparison as follows:


Only if you skip downloading descriptions; otherwise it is only a 4%
savings.

yes I sayed this below

You are also comparing bzip2 sizes, rather than gzip which is what
the tools currently use.


there was a discussion about having Packages.bz2 in the archives once

If you skipped downloading descriptions, then you would not have
descriptions for any new packages, and the ones that you have could be wrong
(some of them do contain version-specific data).

you would have short description at least

it would also be quite easy to add a web interface:
APT would download the packages dependencies and  then download
descriptions of packages that are missing (using the above interface)


---
We will save on hard disk.
On 20august I tried to install Debian on a old notebook with 800MB
memory and I failed; one reason was that I had  24196MB used
by   /var/lib/apt


sorry it was 24megabytes: that was a typo

many times the description is just a standard part, talking about the
package , plus a standard part, saying that this is the library of that
package: so I propose a macro system such as follows


This is what general-purpose data compression does; there is no need to
invent a macro language.

quite on the opposite: I study and teach compression, and I can tell you that macros could provide a benefit

I do not think that the marginal benefits of such a feature would justify
the greatly increased complexity.

depends on the point of view....

when APT memory-maps all those files, that is a LOT of memory (for older systems): a macro language would decrease that and ease older systems (and also newer ones)

 The fact is, Debian unstable only gets
new versions of packages once a day.

if you call that "only"

A long time ago, I set up a cron job
which runs:    ......

your solution assumes that
1) you keep your PC on 24h/day
2) you do not pay for connection

the first is a waste of AC , the 2nd is wrong in my country

BTW I read that if all PC in the offices would be shutdown when inactive, this would save an incredible amount of moneys , but I dont remember now

a.



Reply to: