Bug#232886: marked as done (Inefficient packaging of arch independent data)
Your message dated Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:41:21 +0100
with message-id <20040216234121.GE2198@djpig.de>
and subject line Bug#232886: Inefficient packaging of arch independent data
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 15 Feb 2004 16:26:26 +0000
>From steve@einval.com Sun Feb 15 08:26:26 2004
Return-path: <steve@einval.com>
Received: from s2.ukfsn.org (mail.ukfsn.org) [217.158.120.143]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1AsP6A-00067R-00; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 08:26:26 -0800
Received: from localhost (lucy.ukfsn.org [127.0.0.1])
by mail.ukfsn.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D025DE6D57
for <submit@bugs.debian.org>; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 16:25:36 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail.ukfsn.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (lucy.ukfsn.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 23450-19 for <submit@bugs.debian.org>;
Sun, 15 Feb 2004 16:25:36 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail.einval.com (unknown [80.46.37.4])
by mail.ukfsn.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B639E6D45
for <submit@bugs.debian.org>; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 16:25:34 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from sledge.mossbank.org.uk ([10.13.0.5] ident=mail)
by mail.einval.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 1AsP5x-0001OX-00
for <submit@bugs.debian.org>; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 16:26:13 +0000
Received: from steve by sledge.mossbank.org.uk with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 1AsP5q-0001cY-00; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 16:26:06 +0000
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 16:26:06 +0000
From: Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Inefficient packaging of arch independent data
Message-ID: <[🔎] 20040215162606.GB6114@einval.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_02_12
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=4.0 tests=HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no
version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_02_12
X-Spam-Level:
Package: emacs20-dl
Version: 20.7-14.3
Severity: normal
This is a semi-automated bug report based on scanning the contents of
binary .deb files in the Debian archive.
The emacs20-dl packages seem to contain a very large amount of
architecture-independent data in architecture-dependent packages,
specifically data installed under /usr/share. This is wasteful of
mirror space and bandwidth, as we then end up with multiple copies of
this data, one for each architecture. Policy is quite clear on this
point:
http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging-practices#s-b=
pp-archindepdata
The usage (in KB) of /usr/share by these packages is currently:
29232 pool/main/e/emacs20-dl/emacs20-dl_20.7-14.3_alpha.deb
29232 pool/main/e/emacs20-dl/emacs20-dl_20.7-14.3_arm.deb
29232 pool/main/e/emacs20-dl/emacs20-dl_20.7-14.3_hppa.deb
29240 pool/main/e/emacs20-dl/emacs20-dl_20.7-14.3_i386.deb
29232 pool/main/e/emacs20-dl/emacs20-dl_20.7-14.3_ia64.deb
29232 pool/main/e/emacs20-dl/emacs20-dl_20.7-14.3_m68k.deb
29232 pool/main/e/emacs20-dl/emacs20-dl_20.7-14.3_mips.deb
29232 pool/main/e/emacs20-dl/emacs20-dl_20.7-14.3_mipsel.deb
29232 pool/main/e/emacs20-dl/emacs20-dl_20.7-14.3_powerpc.deb
29232 pool/main/e/emacs20-dl/emacs20-dl_20.7-14.3_s390.deb
29232 pool/main/e/emacs20-dl/emacs20-dl_20.7-14.3_sparc.deb
Please split this package appropriately.
Thanks,
--=20
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.=
com
Can't keep my eyes from the circling sky,
Tongue-tied & twisted, Just an earth-bound misfit, I...
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 232886-done) by bugs.debian.org; 16 Feb 2004 23:41:45 +0000
>From frank@lichtenheld.de Mon Feb 16 15:41:45 2004
Return-path: <frank@lichtenheld.de>
Received: from sorgfalt.net (mail.sorgfalt.net) [217.160.169.191]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1AssMy-00030B-00; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 15:41:45 -0800
Received: from pd9e396a1.dip.t-dialin.net ([217.227.150.161] helo=djpig.djpig.de)
by mail.sorgfalt.net with asmtp
(Cipher TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 3.35 (Sorgfalt))
id 1AssMv-00046o-00
for <232886-done@bugs.debian.org>; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:41:43 +0100
Received: from djpig by djpig.djpig.de with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 1AssMc-00043c-00
for <232886-done@bugs.debian.org>; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:41:22 +0100
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:41:21 +0100
From: Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
To: 232886-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#232886: Inefficient packaging of arch independent data
Message-ID: <20040216234121.GE2198@djpig.de>
References: <[🔎] 20040215162606.GB6114@einval.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 20040215162606.GB6114@einval.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Sender: Frank Lichtenheld <frank@lichtenheld.de>
Delivered-To: 232886-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_02_16
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=4.0 tests=HAS_BUG_NUMBER autolearn=no
version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_02_16
X-Spam-Level:
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 04:26:06PM +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Package: emacs20-dl
> Version: 20.7-14.3
> Severity: normal
>
> This is a semi-automated bug report based on scanning the contents of
> binary .deb files in the Debian archive.
emacs20-dl is only in woody and not in testing/unstable anymore.
Closing the bug.
Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
www: http://www.djpig.de/
Reply to: