Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 03:51:00 -0500 (EST) From: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com> To: anarcat@anarcat.dyndns.org Cc: rwatson@FreeBSD.org, jkh@winston.freebsd.org, jhb@FreeBSD.org, winter@jurai.net, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, obrien@FreeBSD.org, pst@pst.org, des@ofug.org, imp@village.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/sysinstall install.c installUpgrade Message-ID: <200204040851.g348p0nF004035@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: <20020404053753.GK279@lenny.anarcat.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 4 Apr, The Anarcat wrote: > Choosing a archive format has serious implications on the way the > package system is designed since a tabled (eg zip) vs scattered (eg > tar) format has serious implications on the design of the pkg tools > suite. Agreed. > For the record, I'm in favor of the .zip format. I think that with > proper design of the package system, packages can be broken up in > subpackages (doc, bin, non-mandatory shlibs, devel headers, etc). I > think Debian has followed this technique and I find it quite a good > idea. Not everyone needs headers files deployed by some packages, for > example. By breaking up packages this way, we can probably resolve the > space constraints issues. I don't see the relation -- whatever way we slice it, it will still be bigger than it has to be if it uses .zip format instead of .tar.bz2 A package is, typicly, downloaded or found on a CD -- in both cases the file can be seeked around. IMHO, in this case space should be given priority in the eternal "time vs. space" argument. And I suspect, those who disagree are simply blinded by their blazingly fast connections and fat disks. :-) -mi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200204040851.g348p0nF004035>