Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 09:36:57 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: imp@village.org, des@ofug.org, pst@pst.org, obrien@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, winter@jurai.net, jkh@winston.freebsd.org, rwatson@FreeBSD.org, anarcat@anarcat.dyndns.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/sysinstall install.c installUpgrade Message-ID: <XFMail.20020404093657.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200204040851.g348p0nF004035@aldan.algebra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 04-Apr-2002 Mikhail Teterin wrote: > 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. I think a better comparison might be if you think about some of our current ports. We have things like vim and vim-lite. Imagine having a single vim package (so you don't have to duplicate all the share data) whose install script installs either the big vim binary or the smaller binary (both binaries are in the package, hence a "fat" package as I mentioned earlier) depending on if the system has X installed, user preference, etc. Since we would only need 1 copy of stuff that is now duplicated, we could actually end up with a net space gain as well as solving the problem of how to handle having 10 versions of a package for all the various WITH/WITHOUT combinations. >> 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 That's because you aren't thinking in a big enough picture. Please calm down and realize that many people have been thinking about this for a long time. > 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. In the case of a fat package you wouldn't actually download the parts of the package you didn't need if you got the package via a bitstream that you could seek on. > And I suspect, those who disagree are simply blinded by their blazingly > fast connections and fat disks. :-) No, the fact is that we have thought about some of the problems the current scheme doesn't address and which you haven't apparently thought about how to address either. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ 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?XFMail.20020404093657.jhb>