Re: packages size versus files under dpkg control
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 09:50:02AM +0200, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Dear DD!
>
> I would like to have your comment on the following packaging decision:
>
> In packaging the cm-super fonts, i.e. repackaging the pts-tetex-cm-super
> package, we have two options:
>
> 1) Install all font files (*.pfb) as is
>
> 2) Install a compressed definition file and create the pfb files
> at package installation time, then deleting the definition file.
>
> Why would someone want the second approach: SIze reason! In the first
> version the deb has 57M, while in the second approach we would have
> about half the size.
>
> Advantage of 1)
> - all files are under dpkg control
> - no file under dpkg control is deleted in the postinst script
>
> Advantage of 2)
> - smaller size, less load on mirrors and users
>
>
> Could one of you suggest what would be the optimal solution for this
> case?
Optimal? Well, is there a central, low-level library which could be
hacked to link with zlib? That would get you reduced space, as well
as the advantage of having all the files (automatically)
dpkg-registered (and not having to write a postinst/postrm).
:)
Justin
Reply to: