FC4 slimfast slimfest

[Jeff Johnson]

Jeff Johnson wrote:

> Alan Cox wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 10:40:34AM -0500, Demond James wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I say let's look elsewhere before we start swinging the axe at Java 
>>> stuff. We can still keep them on the list, but I say start with the 
>>> bigger games and the redundant applications first.
>>>
>>
>> The few really redundant applications we have don't make a tiny dent 
>> in the
>> space required for java. The more I think about it the more it seems 
>> to come
>> down to "Gnome, KDE, Java, Open Office" pick any three.
>>
>>
>
> I happen to agree with 3 out of 4, makes perfect sense to me.
>
> However, I'm obligated to point out that there is some mechanical 
> drudgery
> that might put off the day of reckoning for what packages should be in
> FC4.
>
> The space constraints are approximately 4*650Mb = 2.3Gb. 


Eeep, serves me right for multiplying in public, sigh.
s/2.3/2.6/

>
>
> Current overage is 300Mb, so package real estate is currently 
> (estimated) 2.6Gb.


s/2.6/2.9/

>
> Headers are (or were) ~12-15% of package real estate.
>
> Let's use 10% for the analysis, or 260Mb of headers in current FC4.


s/260/290/

>
> Compressing headers would save about half of that, or ~130Mb, more if 
> changelogs
> were truncated during build.


s/130/145/

>
> Much learned discussion (jnovy in particular iirc) points out 
> additional savings achievable
> by choosing to use bzip2 for certain large package payloads. I'll wave 
> my hands here,
> but I'm pretty sure that a big chunk of 170Mb could be saved.


s/170/155/

>
> Yes new rpm features, but zlib ain't exactly hard coding, nor is a 
> date comparison loop
> for truncating changelogs, nor is configuring bzip2 payloads for 
> certain package payloads.
>
> And yes, there's a knapsack problem fitting packages onto 4 CD's in 
> priority order
> that is not addressed above at all.
>
> Again, my personal belief is that 3 out of 4 is sounder (as in 
> soundboard) starting point
> for FC discussion.


The analysis is more important than the computational details ...

And 3 out of 4 is still my personal choice.

Sorry for the confusion.

73 de Jeff