On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 05:32:24PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
>
> Making sure that only repos that are actually needed on the target are
> listed can help. Does it need src repos? Does it need
> universe/multiverse? leaving those out makes a huge difference.
atm, we dont have deb-src lines from what i
+++ Christian Robottom Reis [2010-08-05 22:28 -0300]:
> Hi there!
>
> I unpacked our minimal release image and ran an xdiskusage on it,
> mostly to see what we're shipping -- and I was surprised to see that a
> fourth of the image is actually apt package caches and lists.
This is typical for
Hello Dave,
Dave Martin [2010-08-09 9:48 +0100]:
> Fortunately fragmentation is not a problem: tar --delete squashes the
> deleted entry out of the file by rewriting the entire file contents
> from the point where the deletion occurred ;) Of course, that could
> be a bit slow, especially if you
Hello Dave,
Dave Martin [2010-08-09 10:47 +0100]:
> Hence my thought of having a tarball per package. I'm still a bit
> worried about a post-unpack hook changing the package files to be
> different from dpkg's file list for the package -- that could cause
> safety problems. Is there a way to tel
Christian Robottom Reis [2010-08-06 10:30 -0300]:
> By touch I think you mean install, upgrade or remove, and of these I
> guess upgrade is the more common case; do you think it is?
install and upgrade are the common ones, right.
> Would the overhead be significant even if the tarball wasn't comp
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Hello Dave,
[...]
> Ah, right. I take it that rules out having one big tarball for
> /usr/share/doc/ then?
Hence my thought of having a tarball per package. I'm still a bit
worried about a post-unpack hook changing the package files to be
d
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Martin Pitt wrote:
[...]
> As far as I know you can append files; I'm not sure about "inline"
> deletion, but even if it would exist, then over time (i. e. upgrades)
> you would dramatically fragment the file, which reduces or even
> reverts the initial space savi
On Thu, Aug 05, 2010, Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
> I was surprised to see that a
> fourth of the image is actually apt package caches and lists.
Yup, Martin Pitt worked on some APT patches to allow keeping these
compressed in the local disk.
--
Loïc
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 05:38:56PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> > Would the overhead be significant even if the tarball wasn't compressed?
> > I don't understand enough about tar's concatenate and delete performance
> > to risk a guess.
>
> tar's default internal blocksize is 512 bytes, so there wo
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Michael Vogt wrote:
> You have the following options to make the on-disk file size smaller:
>
> * keep them compressed on disk (needs apt in maverick), you need to set
> """
> Acquire::GzipIndexes "true";
> """
> in /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/10keepcompressed
>
>
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
> By touch I think you mean install, upgrade or remove, and of these I
> guess upgrade is the more common case; do you think it is?
I think you're right. This hits the end user more than first-time
installation - install and remove
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 12:05:25PM +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Dave Martin wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Alexander Sack wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Christian Robottom Reis > >> Hi there!
> > >>
> > >>I unpacked our minimal rel
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 02:16:00PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Alexander Sack [2010-08-06 12:15 +0200]:
> > > If we have to keep /usr/share/doc/ (for copyright notices and so on),
> > > maybe it would be feasible to replace each /usr/share/doc//
> > > with a tarball? This would eli
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 10:57:21AM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> We could remove these files, but I agree it may be a false
> optimisation: the size of the release filesystem is no longer
> representative of the steady-state size of the filesystem when it's in
> use in this case.
Well, I think that
Hello all,
Alexander Sack [2010-08-06 12:15 +0200]:
> > If we have to keep /usr/share/doc/ (for copyright notices and so on),
> > maybe it would be feasible to replace each /usr/share/doc//
> > with a tarball? This would eliminate most of the overhead as well as
> > making the actual data smaller
Hello,
Dave Martin [2010-08-06 13:35 +0100]:
> Just to clarify my meaning--- I expected to have a tarball per
> package, not one massive tarball for the whole system... the cost of
> maintaining the latter would certainly get very unpleasant for people.
Hm, but then you wouldn't save a lot -- you
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Zygmunt Bazyli Krynicki
wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-06 at 12:05 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
>> Out of interest, does anyone know why dpkg/apt never migrated
>> from the
>> "massive sequential text file" approach to something more
>> da
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Alexander Sack [2010-08-06 12:15 +0200]:
>> > If we have to keep /usr/share/doc/ (for copyright notices and so on),
>> > maybe it would be feasible to replace each /usr/share/doc//
>> > with a tarball? This would eliminate most o
On Fri, 2010-08-06 at 12:05 +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
> Out of interest, does anyone know why dpkg/apt never migrated
> from the
> "massive sequential text file" approach to something more
> database-oriented? I've often thought that the current
> system'
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Alexander Sack wrote:>>
> * stripping /usr/share/doc out (but everybody knew that)
>
>
> > ack. we plan to do that using pitti's dpkg improvements; last time they
> > didn't land
> > in the archive yet, but I
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Alexander Sack wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Christian Robottom Reis >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi there!
> >>
> >>I unpacked our minimal release image and ran an xdiskusage on it,
> >
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Alexander Sack wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Christian Robottom Reis
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi there!
>>
>> I unpacked our minimal release image and ran an xdiskusage on it,
>> mostly to see what we're shipping -- and I was surprised to see that a
>>
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
> Hi there!
>
>I unpacked our minimal release image and ran an xdiskusage on it,
> mostly to see what we're shipping -- and I was surprised to see that a
> fourth of the image is actually apt package caches and lists. Can we
23 matches
Mail list logo
