Re: policy summary for past two weeks
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 09:49:49PM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> 2) People used the `formal objection' mechanism to stop the answer just
> because the didn't like. I don't think this was right. And the people who
> did it are starting to realize that too.. =)
I don't think that all the objections were just because "the didn't
like". You're trivializing some real concerns.
[snip]
> 4) I didn't like the reasons given at all.
Is that a technical objection, or are you objecting just because you
"don't like" the reasons?
> Optimization is the mother of disaster.. (why don't we design a
> package format using 4 bits for the package section, 1 bit for... =)
And code bloat is a disaster. Useless optimization is a waste of time.
But if you've only got 5 bits, your options are limited--you've got to
give something up.
> Having a prerm script for a long time is a bad thing? a price too
> high? come on!
I've currently got 2112 files in my /var/lib/dpkg/rules directory. It
takes 10-50 seconds to read that directory if it's not already cached.
The situation will only get worse as new packages are added. That's
really starting to push the useful limits on the number of files in a
directory. And this proposal would have added a few hundred? more for no
real gain. I think that's a real concern. There are some possibilities
for working around that concern (e.g., moving to a database rather than
plain files, creating a directory hash, waiting for e3fs) but those
options are not yet available.
I'm sure others could come up with their own objections, but the heart
of the matter is whether this solution is good enough to prompt a move
from usr/doc to share/doc, or whether it would be better to wait for
something cleaner. Remember, we _can_ wait...
Mike Stone
Reply to: