Better packaging for older hardware?
Mike A. Harris
mharris at redhat.com
Sat Oct 18 09:02:37 UTC 2003
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003, M. Fioretti wrote:
>> > almost transparent to power end users: they would continue to
>> > install/update as usual "kde desktop", "gnome desktop", and so on,
>> > without ever noticing what happened below.
>>
>> IMHO it is bloat. I thought the idea was to reduce the size of FC. See below.
>
>The kernel is a special case, I agree, and it is not really the most
>important things. Proper packages are. Why do you think the
>repackaging I suggest would be against reducing the size of FC (Fedora
>Core, right? Sorry, I just came in...)? Which size do you refer to?
>
>byte size would increase little or nothing: I'm proposing to make 10
>packages of 1 MB instead of 1 of 10 MB (very rough approximation, I
>agree)
>
>Pure *Number* of binary packages: that would increase a lot, yes, but
>not the complexity or maintenance effort. If you keep the same source
>kdebase RPM you have today (one only) and modify the spec file so that
>it creates kde_app1.rpm, kde_app2.rpm, etc... you still have *one*
>code base: you apply patches to that one, and packages are rebuilt
>automatically. Please let me know if and why this is not possible.
It _is_ possible, and in fact our KDE used to be split up into
more packages. There are _always_ tradeoffs in this world
however, and more packages and subpackages _DO_ increase package
maintenance efforts. That doesn't mean subpackages should be
avoided, but it does very much mean that a balance is needed, and
that there are many other factors which determine things.
Should I put every single binary application which comes with
XFree86 in it's own separate rpm for example? Do you use xcalc?
Someone might put forth that including xcalc, xditview, etc. are
bloat, and that they only want to install the apps they will
actually use. They might even make the bogus disk space claim.
What's funny though, is that for XFree86 packaging at least,
every single sub package consumes at least a minimum of 150-200Kb
each on your hard disk, even if the package were to contain zero
files. This is because the rpm spec file changelog is stored in
the rpm database once per installed package (instead of merging
and refcounting, unless this has changed and I'm wrong now), so
any subpackage that isn't at least 400-500Kb or more in size
argueably is *wasting* space and should be merged into a
different subpackage. ;o)
Someone out there is now no doubt multiplying the size of the
changelog by the number of subpackages and calculating the total
wasted disk space in the rpm database when XFree86 is installed.
If not, it'll likely be something to the effect of:
$ rpm -q --changelog $(rpm -qa |grep ^XFree86) |wc -c
4433085
Or roughly 4.5Mb of your RPM database files is XFree86
changelogs. Wowsers. ;o)
Before someone asks/complains/flames/whatever about this
wasteage, I'm considering trimming the changelog down so that it
only includes changes since 4.1.0, and moving the older changes
into /usr/share/doc/XFree86-* somewhere with a pointer to them at
the end of the rpm changelog. I just checked and removing all
changelog entries from 4.2.1 and older would cut wasteage only in
half, so not that huge of a gain anyway. ;o)
--
Mike A. Harris ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris
OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list