On Jan 10 19:19:03, gen...@mva.name wrote:
> В письме от вторник, 10 января 2017 г. 13:08:14 +07 пользователь Jan Stary
> написал:
> > On Jan 10 19:04:47, gen...@mva.name wrote:
> > > > There is an option to support; the packages need to be reinstalled
> > > > or there are untracked files; the manpage formatter needs to call
> > > > external unpackers. All this to save 40M. I honestly don't think
> > > > it's worth it.
> > >
> > > Why do you care about calling external unpacker,
> > > but do not care about saving 40MB?
> >
> > Because not having to call an external unpacker
> > allows for the manpage formatter to be simple;
> > whereas saving 40M of space is of no concern.
>
> You arguing that 40MB is nothing on modern systems (which, by the way is not
> exactly true, talking about embedded ones).
Can you gove an example of an embedded system with manpages?
> So, I guess, it means, that you have modern powerfull hardware, which is
> pretty fine with some overheads.
If having an extra 40MB is "modern, powerfull hardware", then yes.
> Then why do you need "simple" manpage formatter?
Why do I want software to be simple?
> And actually, why calling external unpacker is so complicated? Almost any
> programming language I know, has functions identical to C's system()...
It's not that complicated; it's unneeded, it's another dependency, etc.
> Do you fully understand, that you asking to change "defaults", that will
> affect tons of users (which are happy with current "defaults") because yours
> only own local problems (not having root access on the system)?
This has nothing to do with not having root - that only makes it
unable for me to use the _workarounds_.
What would be the effect of having uncompressed manpages as the default?
(Besides having them renderred by any manpage formatter,
and wasting 40MB of space, obviously)?
Jan
