further package removals/potential package removals

[Jeff Johnson]

Jamie Zawinski wrote:

>Jeff Johnson wrote:
>  
>
>>... nautilus "needs" samba much likes it needs just about every other
>>bleeping library in FC4. Why? Because users want "features", and
>>features requires implementations, usually in libraries, which use
>>sonames, which are copied into package dependencies.
>>    
>>
>
>If you think that the fact that Nautilus has a lot of "features" means
>that it's necessary for it to cause the entire desktop as a single
>unsplittable ball of mud, well, you have been misinformed.
>  
>

By George, I think he's got it! The point is that dependencies are not 
the problem,
bloat is.

>  
>
>>So change how ghostscript is packaged, splitting out each individual
>>printer driver into a separate package, leaving a pristine ghostscript
>>that floats your boat.
>>    
>>
>
>Hey, guess what!  I don't maintain Ghostscript or work for Red Hat!
>Other people on this list have the ability to fix this crap, not me.
>  
>

Well I have maintained ghostscript for Red Hat, and splitting up the drivers
into single packages so that users who wish to use ghostscript without
printer drivers just ain't worth the trouble. How much space is saved?
And how many additional packages need to be added, one per driver,
to support the illusion of choice?

Do the math, it's not worth the trouble. There are far bigger problems
that need solving than ghostscript drivers.

>  
>
>>If space is tight, then you're cheap ;-)
>>    
>>
>
>Ok smartass, now why don't you explain to me how I'm "cheap" because I
>don't have the time or inclination to back up, repartition, and restore
>my machines' drives every time I upgrade the OSes because someone with
>your "disk space doesn't matter" attitude decided that it was ok for a
>default install to go from a /usr that takes ~400MB to >2GB in just two
>years.
>

I, too was astonished at the amount of bloat. And the actual sum is 
closer to 4 GB, then 2 Gb
for an "everything" install. And the bloat happened longer than 2 years ago.

Again because users wish "features", like 4 or 5 copies of automake 
(I've lost count),
and 6+ copies of Berkely DB. And 6+ shells, and as many text editors as 
exist, and ...

>  
>
>>Seriously, diska *are* cheap.
>>    
>>
>
>Seriously, you *are* missing the point.
>  
>

What was the point I'm missing again?

>  
>
>>And there is already a mechanism to install only requested locales,
>>feel free to configure to limit locales to *only* en_US if your boat
>>is sinking because of locale baggage.
>>    
>>
>
>What binary rpm installation does that?  Oh, I'm sorry, you must have
>been under the impression that I was compiling all my packages from
>source, since everyone does that.
>  
>

No, choosing locales is an install option that applies to binary options 
that is anaconda
selectable, and globally configurable. And all rpm installations since 
like RHL 7.2 have
had that functionality.

>  
>
>>Try --excludedocs, been in rpm for years.
>>    
>>
>
>I must have overlooked the Anaconda checkbox that turns that on.
>And the "yum update" option, too.
>  
>

So make an RFE. The mechanism exists even if anaconda and yum choose not 
to use
--excludedocs. The mechanism is also globally configurable, put
    %_netsharedpath /usr/share/doc
in /etc/rpm/macros.

Or keeep bitching about the energy and effort that *YOU* need to go 
through to
tune *YOUR* system to *YOUR* custom tatstes, perhaps *YOU* will be
heard, and yum and anaconda will provide *YOU* a special radio button
that customizes exactly to *YOUR* taste.

>  
>
>>look around a bit on your file system with "du -s".
>>    
>>
>
>GOLLY I NEVER THOUGHT OF THAT.
>  
>

Well keep practicing, perhaps you'll figger it out some day.

73 de Jeff