On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 08:40:29PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014, at 19:28, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Ondřej Surý <ond...@sury.org> writes: > > > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014, at 18:25, Jakub Wilk wrote: > > > > >> Food for thought: > > >> Which fields take up most space in Packages.xz[0]? > > > > > I am still lost - what problem are we trying to solve here? > > > Could we at least define it to see if the problem exists? > > > > I'm fairly sure Jakub's message was in response to the recent discussion > > about small Node.js packages and the frequent complaints that we should > > not introduce small packages into the archive because it bloats our > > metadata. > > > > Reducing the size of Packages.xz by 11% or 22% would leave room for quite > > a lot of small packages while not making the problem any worse than it is > > today. > > Ok, that makes much more sense now. Still is the main problem the > download > size or the size on the disk (I can guess that it can be a problem on > embedded > archs). Or both?
Or just being a tidy citizen and try to avoid unnecessary wastage? -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140718150937.GK8963@tal
