[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Dependency loops considered harmful?

On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 10:31 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Mamoru Tasaka
> <mtasaka ioa s u-tokyo ac jp> wrote:
> > Umm... agreed.
> > When I install some binary rpms rebuilt by koji scratch build to review
> > the package it often pulls so many depdendencies, especially when they
> > are Java packages.
> What's the overall drive consumption when you do that? The issue isnt
> "number of packages" the issue is "amount of harddrive space."  Game
> data make be exceptional in that that are typically as large or larger
> than 200M.  Pulling in java deps might pollute your packagelist..but
> does it burn 200M+ of harddrive space?

 Err, so?
 500GB drives are now like < $100, that's $1 == 5GB, ยข10 == 500MB.

 So personally I'd argue that more packages are worse, even if you talk
about bandwidth instead of storage ... the large collection of Java etc.
is much more likely to get updates than the game data (and it's much
easier to see the game data, if it does get an update).

> I hope the packagekit people are watching this discussion. The game
> data subpackaging issue should be right up their ally in terms of
> end-user ease of use issues.

 It's unlikely to be a priority if the dep. loops are included, also the
only obvious fix is to keep extra data outside of rpm/yum ... and if yum
shouldn't be doing that to rpm then PK _really_ shouldn't be doing that.

James Antill <james antill redhat com>
Red Hat

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]