On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Hugo Chargois <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 2:02 AM, Allan McRae <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Please do not top post. >> >> I can not see a mention of the FR in the new patch you sent. Did you just >> resend the old one? >> >> But getting to more a basic level with this. What does this achieve? It is >> not an actual measure of additional space needed to update given it does not >> account for the downloaded file. So it can not be used to check if your >> system will run out of space on an upgrade.
Of course this fact is available two lines above, so this is a bit of a straw man to use in this case. > Yeah, I can not see the new patch I sent, maybe I made a mistake. I'll > resend it. > > The point is to show how much bigger the installed size of packages is > getting. Not to show exactly what diskspace the entire transaction > will take. Package cache can be cleaned, and if you don't have enough > diskpace to store some packages for the time of their installation, > you're doing it wrong and should buy a new hdd. (and well, now you > could get this information by summing the download size and the > used/freed space). > I think it's good to know if packages are getting bloatier or slimmer. > When I upload big packages and the installation size is 300 MB, I > don't know if I will actually have 100 MB freed on my disk because the > previous versions were 400, or if I will lose 100 because they were > 200. If it's plus 100, well maybe I'd think of replacing some programs > by lighter ones, if it's minus 100 well great (but maybe some > functionalities were moved to a new package which I'd want to > install?). > Aptitude/apt-get shows that information in lieu of the "Total > Installed Size", and I think that's much more sensible. The naming is not my favorite, but that may be a detail we can get around. Instead of "Total Size Used/Freed:", hmm. It is something more like "Total Installed Size Delta", but that sucks more than what you came up with. As a side note, "% .2f MB" will never work as a format- that is "%<space>.2f MB" and will not work as expected. I didn't check if that got fixed in a later patch, but just an FYI. Are there widespread objections to this patch? I like the idea, but I also worry we are getting quite cluttered here with junk that some people might care less about, and as Allan said, this isn't a very valid substitute for a disk space check. -Dan
