Le samedi 14 décembre 2013 à 14:24 -0500, Mike Miller a écrit : > Anyway, the pressing question is still whether to split the package at > all, and I took Thomas' point that we should have some analysis. I > tested installing octave 3.6.4 and 3.8.0~rc1 in a clean unstable amd64 > chroot to compare dependencies and disk space. I hope the following is > useful. [...] > For most users (without --no-install-recommends), the required disk > space goes up by 100 MB, roughly 30% on this minimal setup, mostly due > to the new dependencies. The core octave packages themselves > (liboctave[12], octave, octave-common) increase by 6.3 MB taken > together. The remaining increase is from Java and Qt and their > dependencies. Java pulls in 9 new packages with a total installed size > of about 64 MB. Qt pulls in 10 new packages with a total installed size > of about 30 MB. Thanks Mike for this analysis. So, to summarize the current situation, splitting would allow people who don't want the GUI to save 30MB on their hard drive, and this is less than 7% of the total install of 3.8 with recommends. In my opinion, this confirms that splitting is not really worth it. Also, to summarize the discussion about package layout, there seems to be 2 ways of splitting: - either introducing one new package octave-cli, containing the oct-files, and on which octave (containing the GUI) would depend - either introducing two new packages, octave-cli and octave-common-bin. The latter would contain the oct-files. And both octave and octave-cli would depend on it. Anyways, before we reach a consensus on that issue, would that be acceptable for everyone if I upload 3.8.0-rc1 in its current state (i.e. no splitting)? We can always decide to split later, since we are targeting experimental for the time being. -- .''`. Sébastien Villemot : :' : Debian Developer `. `' http://www.dynare.org/sebastien `- GPG Key: 4096R/381A7594
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part