Re: policy summary for past two weeks
> > 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.
dpkg is about software installation, is not a high performance thing. I'd
say that the situation would be acceptable even if we had the double of
files in that directory.
> 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...
If we cannot make a smooth transition, we should wait. But I still think
that we CAN start a good transition now.
Reply to: