Re: multiarch support and dpkg 2.0 design document
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 12:46:13PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> >> The current dpkg database counts for less than 0.1% of the entire used
> >> disk space of a typical Debian system. Even with the new meta-data, I
> >
> > I think it makes more sense to measure database size as compared to
> > the size of managed files. Conary manages 4.62 GiB on my system. We
> > use a sqlite database that's 126 MiB. I have a 60 GB hard drive on my
> > system, so that's roughly 0.2%.
>
> It makes no sense to compare the database size to a typical
> system. Typical systems have so much diskspace that they just don't
> care anyway.
That's what I was attempting to say. Almost all of the 60 GB on my
disc are "used." The metric should be database size given the data
under package management.
> The problem is with small systems. Your mips router, your arm pda and
> so on. With a 256-512MB disk an 126MB databse is quite unacceptable.
> Even now dpkg + apt meta data can make up half of the systems
> diskspace.
No doubt a 126 MiB database is too big for a PDA - but it will have
far, far less data under package management. I don't know how small a
Conary database would be in this case, but it certainly won't be 126
MiB.
I'm not sure how feasible it will be to have a good database that
meets the needs for both big systems and embedded systems. ipkg seems
to be a sufficient package management solution for the extremely small
systems...
Cheers,
Matt
--
Matt Wilson
Founding Engineer
rPath, Inc.
msw@rpath.com
Reply to: