-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi,
I have a package of bup - a git-based backup tool - sitting in the NEW queue. bup is 99% python, with a small .so module for some speed-critical code. I decided to have an architecture: all bup-common package for the majority of the program, and a small architecture: any package for the .so module, which depends on the -common package. I did this mostly to see how hard it was, and to see whether it would save mirror space. On my system, the -common package ends up being 76K and the architecture dependent package 12K. By my calculation: 12K * 12 release architectures + 76K = 225K total As appose to, (76K + 12K) * 12 release architectures = 1M total So the savings are quite significant, in terms of the total package size (which is relatively small). Is this worth the added complexity of two binary packages? Are there other advantages/disadvantages to consider? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkv6etMACgkQFotOcXAy8jjFBQCfUGN+tDNgqIMr+ycfbaegBlMT ejYAoIsARMvB4NqwN115pi3MKyc4LWef =RZ5F -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bfa7ad7.9000...@debian.org
