On 2011-02-04 07:27, Philipp Kern wrote: > On 2011-02-03, Joerg Jaspert <jo...@ganneff.de> wrote: > > * Leaf packages. that is, the possibility of having small packages in > > the archive, without bloating the packages files as a "full package" > > would. Somehow, less information stored for them. Like only "Package", > > "Installed-Size", "Version", "FileName", "Size", "Sha1Sum" and one new > > "mainpackage:" which is simply the package name of the "full > > package". maybe a one-line description entry, but thats it. > > > > Tools like apt then take all the other missing information, including > > the long desc, from the mainpackage, and voila we get the possibility > > to have something like foo-config-blabla and foo-config-blubber > > without much bloat. (this will need design work done now but we won't > > be able to use it before wheezy or wheezy+1) > > Which would mean stripping Depends and doing indirection. What about, > instead, dropping two of the checksums and refering to the Description > in another file which is planned for translations of them anyway? > (I.e. refer by hash.)
++. I don't think indirection is a good idea, it makes indexing and, say, grepping, much harder. Also, different flavours of the same package quite often have a bit different Depends. I would prefer dropping only one hashsum (of 3) though. > Would that already help quite a bit? The description and the hashsums > probably contain a tad more entropy than the other bits and could > already help quite a bit. ++ -- Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com C++/Perl developer, Debian Developer -- 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/20110204170547.GB7710@r500-debian
