[Fedora-packaging] Re: New db4 update and package changes

Ville Skyttä ville.skytta at iki.fi
Sun Sep 9 07:46:43 UTC 2007

On Sunday 09 September 2007, Robert Scheck wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > On Saturday 08 September 2007, Michel Salim wrote:
> > > On 11/08/2007, Robert Scheck <robert at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > > > thousands of -devel packages is in my not so humble opinion what the
> > > > reporter of bug #220484 would like to see. And I don't believe,
> > > > there's any real benefit of doing so, so please avoid it. We're
> > > > living in the 3rd year- thousand and I don't want to calculate what 5
> > > > MB of disk space could cost.
> > >
> > > Thirded. Consider that good ol' Slackware does not even split
> > > development files out of their main packages!
> >
> > 5MB is actually pretty much if you consider setups on space constrained
> > media such as live CDs, small flash disks etc.  There have been other
> > related lengthy discussions about things such as trimming package
> > changelogs which would result in the same order of magnitude space
> > savings when installed, so there are people who do care about numbers
> > like that.
> Ehem. I talked about 5 MB for splitting the -devel package itself. Since 
> when are db4-devel packages installed on live CDs, small flash disks etc.?
> And no, it's not the same. So please don't bring my argumentation out of
> context!

That wasn't my intention, sorry if I offended you.  Your later (than your 
mailing list post) comment in #220484 seems very much opposed to the whole 
split and doesn't mention devel packages at all.  Michel's reply above (which 
as the quote indicators show, is primarily what I replied to) seems to me to 
be using Slackware as a proof-of-concept argument that not caring about size 
overhead of development files in packages in general works just fine.  And I 
don't actually see a db4-cxx-devel in the packages tree nor in the db4.spec 
CVS history.

> Ville, I agree with you 5 MB are much for tiny mediums or embedded
> devices, but this is not related to -devel packages itself.

And I agree that splitting foo-devel into foo-bar-devel and foo-quux-devel is 
not usually that interesting if space considerations are the only thing 
driving it.

More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list