Title: TugaMail.com
Registo | Ajuda | Contacto | Privacidade | Condições de
utilização
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 01:54:04PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > (Besides, that calculation assumes things like all developers doing it and
> > all packages having it.)
>
> That's probably a reasonable assumption.
>
> As soon as such a field exists, some enterprising young person will
> gener
On 16-Dec-02, 11:47 (CST), Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Besides, that calculation assumes things like all developers doing it and
> all packages having it.)
That's probably a reasonable assumption.
As soon as such a field exists, some enterprising young person will
generate wishlist
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 05:06:55PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> As a result of this the Packages file will increase 516343 - 25919 = 490424
> bytes, or around 479 kilobyte. That is a lot of data for people using
> modems.
And the same amount of data they'll get anyway, just from regular
devel
Previously Mike Dresser wrote:
> Isn't Packages compressed when apt-get downloads it? Looking at woody's
> Packages.gz, it's compressed about 5:1, so I would expect this new
> homepage tag to compress at least equally well, turning this into a 100kb
> expansion.
Depends on the dselect method I th
On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> I did some quick math to see how much a Packages file will grow
> if we add a Homepage URL.
> As a result of this the Packages file will increase 516343 - 25919 = 490424
> bytes, or around 479 kilobyte. That is a lot of data for people using
> modems
I did some quick math to see how much a Packages file will grow
if we add a Homepage URL.
The number of unique URLs currently being used:
[tornado;~]-32> grep http: /var/lib/dpkg/available | sed -e
's/.*\(http:[^[:space:]]*\).*/\1/' | sort | uniq | wc -l
744
The amount of data curr
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 12:12:08PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > This does feel like a debian-devel or debian-project issue rather than
> > a policy issue, too...?
>
> It is relevant to the discusison though.. do we want to bloat the
> Packages file with usptream author & homepage information
Previously Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Well, why not? All it would take would be for
> apt-ftparchive/dpkg-scanpackages to not copy the relevant fields into
> the Packages file; would this break anything? (and if so, can we fix
> it?)
It will break all existing dselect methods for example that exepec
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 05:00:33AM -0600, Adam DiCarlo wrote:
> > > Comments desired.
> >
> > Perhaps it makes sense to think about all fields people would possible
> > want. The rpm format for example has a license field. Is that something
> > that people would like to see for deb as well?
>
> W
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 12:12:08PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Adam DiCarlo wrote:
> > Well, before I venture on this, is there a way we can store certain
> > data in control.tar.gz or something but without bloating the Packages
> > file?
>
> No.
Well, why not? All it would take w
On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 12:12:08 +0100
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Previously Adam DiCarlo wrote:
> > Well, before I venture on this, is there a way we can store certain
> > data in control.tar.gz or something but without bloating the Packages
> > file?
>
> No.
Well, not with exist
Previously Adam DiCarlo wrote:
> Well, before I venture on this, is there a way we can store certain
> data in control.tar.gz or something but without bloating the Packages
> file?
No.
> This does feel like a debian-devel or debian-project issue rather than
> a policy issue, too...?
It is releva
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Previously Adam DiCarlo wrote:
> > Comments desired.
>
> Perhaps it makes sense to think about all fields people would possible
> want. The rpm format for example has a license field. Is that something
> that people would like to see for deb as well?
14 matches
Mail list logo
