[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: slcomp.py - sources.list compactor



Carl Karsten wrote:
>> Do
>> you propose this for including to APT?
> 
> as part of python-apt in /usr/share/doc/python-apt/examples/
Ok, then I am hiding and leaving further to Michael, he is python-apt developer.

>> Apart from above, personally, I don't like this approach. Using such a
>> script
>> means that user have a big mess in its sources.list (most users have
>> two-four
>> entries), that all logical formatting and comments will be lost.
>> /etc/apt/sources.list.d idea is also lost. Hence I would not recommend
>> it.
> 
> That depends on what you call a mess.
> 
> On a ubuntu install with universe/multiverse enabled (fairly typical):
> juser@emac18:~$ grep ^deb /etc/apt/sources.list|wc
>      18      78    1320
> 18 entries. in that 18 there are 2 repos
> (us.archive.ubuntu.com,security.ubuntu.com) 3 sections:
> (jaunty,jaunty-updates,jaunty-security) and 4 components  ['main',
> 'restricted', 'universe', 'multiverse'] - universe/multiverse get there
> own lines.  Including comments and blanks: 55 lines.  The comments may
> change a little each release, but once I have read them I have no use
> for them they just clutter the file so spend the time to delete them.  I
> am sure I am in the minority of people who care/bother with this, but we
> certainly are not hurting anything.
Then say 'thanks' Ubuntu. Yes, 55 lines IMHO is a mess.
Debian's typical sources.list:

-8<-
deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian stable main contrib non-free
deb http://security.debian.org stable/updates main contrib non-free
->8-


Ok, I got your position. I still think that Debian doesn't need this script,
but maybe it will be more or less useful in Ubuntu, feel free to ask for
Ubuntu-only changes (e.g. file a bug against python-apt at launchpad).

-- 
Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com
Ukrainian C++ Developer, Debian Maintainer, APT contributor

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: