Re: Wasteful packaging

2002-04-15 Thread Josip Rodin
On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 01:21:05AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > That's ~9MB per binary package, * 2 for the two versions in the > pool. Looking more closely at the current i386 package, unpacked: > > sledge:~/debian/evolution$ du -s usr/* > 14548 usr/share > > Over half of the installed packa

Re: Wasteful packaging

2002-04-14 Thread Junichi Uekawa
Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit: > We _really_ should be packaging things like this better - the common > stuff should go into binary-all packages with appropriate > dependencies! This is apt to break unless you are careful, and causes dependency loops. Don't try to do it

Re: Wasteful packaging

2002-04-14 Thread Steve Kowalik
On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 01:21:05AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > sledge:~/debian/evolution$ du -s usr/* > 3660usr/bin > 6656usr/lib > 12 usr/sbin > 14548 usr/share > > Over half of the installed package is made up of stuff in /usr/share, > i.e. common arch-independent stuff like im

Wasteful packaging

2002-04-14 Thread Steve McIntyre
As I'm sat waiting for my local mirror to update so I can get some test DVD images created, I've been looking through some of the larger packages that have been taking a while. We have some huge packages that are wasting space on CDs for release and (more importantly) mirrors and their bandwidth.