Re: Let's shrink Packages.xz
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 08:40:29PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014, at 19:28, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Ondřej Surý <ondrej@sury.org> writes:
> > > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014, at 18:25, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> >
> > >> Food for thought:
> > >> Which fields take up most space in Packages.xz[0]?
> >
> > > I am still lost - what problem are we trying to solve here?
> > > Could we at least define it to see if the problem exists?
> >
> > I'm fairly sure Jakub's message was in response to the recent discussion
> > about small Node.js packages and the frequent complaints that we should
> > not introduce small packages into the archive because it bloats our
> > metadata.
> >
> > Reducing the size of Packages.xz by 11% or 22% would leave room for quite
> > a lot of small packages while not making the problem any worse than it is
> > today.
>
> Ok, that makes much more sense now. Still is the main problem the
> download
> size or the size on the disk (I can guess that it can be a problem on
> embedded
> archs). Or both?
Or just being a tidy citizen and try to avoid unnecessary wastage?
--
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the
oppressing." --- Malcolm X
Reply to: