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

Re: disk space saving?

On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:51:35AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 09:53:56PM +0100, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> > > Yes, but if it is no more work, why not do it. And also, you get the
> > > benefit of not needing the non native code supporting autobuilders.
> > I don't really care if it would be more work. It is too many package.
> > Cameleon is about 16 and it is enough and maybe too much.
> Well, hopefully this week end I can look at my packages and also at
> cameleon. Anyway I need to know from you, Jerome, if you are contrary
> just because it's a lot of work that you consider not-so-useful or for
> some other reasons.
> In other words: have you any problem if I perform the needed changes on
> the cameleon package?
> [ for the reason why I support the native/byte splitting see below ]
> > I really think that it is turning into a disk space _obsession_.
> <snipped a lot of good arguments against disk space obsession>
> I agrre with all your arguments atainst disk space obsession, disk space
> is really not a problem.

And Jerome,

Imagine a small video clip running on your TV. 

you see luchini standing beside one of the debian autodguilder, looking
at you saddly, and telling you "you see, each time one of these
autobuilder has to run and build a (n+1)th copy of the exact same
bytecode package, the processor runs, consumes power, dissipates heat,
contributes to the global warming effect, and thus cause the dying of
the polar bears, for which _you_ are responsible a bit for not wanting
to do the bit more work of splitting the packages and sparing 5 of those

BTW, for those not french, there was one ad for global warming and
sparing power running a few month ago, with such discurse about wash
machines and other such.


Sven Luther

Reply to: