Re: Install size estimation (using du -S data)
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> We have conflicting data here. Mrvn says that the total du
> data is only 76k. Charles says that the data is about 400k (which is
> way more in line with my off the cuff calculations).
If I'm right your calculations where on the basis of the installed
files. You counted one line per file.
I generated a du index of all Packages, so only directories are
listed. That cuts down the size by a large amount.
> I have not the time at the moment to run the data collection
> myself, but I think we should have this reconciled. I have
> personally copied everyone who seemed interested in this endeavor,
> and maybe we should go offline while this is resolved.
Since we have a volunteer for writing a apt-size (or similar name)
programm that checks the size before installing, let him do it and see
how big a file he needs.
> I am inclined to believe the 400k figures. I would, for
> scalability reasons, advocate that we re run our scripts on a _ful__
> i386 mirror (which I do not have at the moment -- ran out of space).
My figure, as you can see from the script, was a simple du output of
all Packages. I downloaded hamm/binary-i386 and hamm/binary-all before
I run the script, so it should be the full i386 tree.
> I also would strongly advocate *NOT* stuffing this data into
> the Packages or the Available files, but keeping this apart on the
> archive and when downloaded on the users disk.
The Packages are the wrong place. We couldn't tell that foo doesnt fit
without downloading foo, and thats not what we want.
I'm tending to have the du index in a seperate files, so one can
choose to download it, or generate it from once mirror, or not use it
May the Source be with you.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org