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 <email@example.com> writes:
> > > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014, at 18:25, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> > >> Food for thought:
> > >> Which fields take up most space in Packages.xz?
> > > 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
> size or the size on the disk (I can guess that it can be a problem on
> 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