Re: Debian packages of Wine
2009/1/22 Austin English : > On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Ben Klein wrote: >> 2009/1/22 Ben Klein : >>> Stupid gmail. >>> >>> 2009/1/22 Ben Klein : Well, I've got wine/wine-dev/wine-dbg packages building right now :) wine: ~ >>> >>> wine: ~11MB >>> wine-dev: ~2.5MB >>> wine-dbg: ~22MB >>> >>> These are likely to be bigger on etch. >>> >> >> Wow, OK, not quite. Turns out I wasn't using lzma before. Now I am. >> First build of a Sid/amd64 package yields these sizes: >> >> wine: ~6.7M >> wine-dev: ~1.7M >> wine-dbg: ~12M >> >> That's a bigger improvement than I expected! > > What's the difference between these? > Wine = main executable/libraries Correct > Wine-dev = includes? Everything provided by install-dev. Primarily development headers, but also winegcc etc it seems. Average users don't need these, so it's separated to keep the main package size down. > Wine-dbg = debugging symbols? Yes. Handy thing about Debian package building is a tool called dh_strip. By default, this will strip out debugging symbols, but it can be told to save them to a separate package. Again, debugging symbols are useful for some, but take up a lot of space.
Re: Debian packages of Wine
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Ben Klein wrote: > 2009/1/22 Ben Klein : >> Stupid gmail. >> >> 2009/1/22 Ben Klein : >>> Well, I've got wine/wine-dev/wine-dbg packages building right now :) >>> >>> wine: ~ >>> >> >> wine: ~11MB >> wine-dev: ~2.5MB >> wine-dbg: ~22MB >> >> These are likely to be bigger on etch. >> > > Wow, OK, not quite. Turns out I wasn't using lzma before. Now I am. > First build of a Sid/amd64 package yields these sizes: > > wine: ~6.7M > wine-dev: ~1.7M > wine-dbg: ~12M > > That's a bigger improvement than I expected! What's the difference between these? Wine = main executable/libraries Wine-dev = includes? Wine-dbg = debugging symbols? -- -Austi
Re: Debian packages of Wine
2009/1/22 Ben Klein : > Stupid gmail. > > 2009/1/22 Ben Klein : >> Well, I've got wine/wine-dev/wine-dbg packages building right now :) >> >> wine: ~ >> > > wine: ~11MB > wine-dev: ~2.5MB > wine-dbg: ~22MB > > These are likely to be bigger on etch. > Wow, OK, not quite. Turns out I wasn't using lzma before. Now I am. First build of a Sid/amd64 package yields these sizes: wine: ~6.7M wine-dev: ~1.7M wine-dbg: ~12M That's a bigger improvement than I expected!
Re: Debian packages of Wine
Stupid gmail. 2009/1/22 Ben Klein : > Well, I've got wine/wine-dev/wine-dbg packages building right now :) > > wine: ~ > wine: ~11MB wine-dev: ~2.5MB wine-dbg: ~22MB These are likely to be bigger on etch.
Re: Debian packages of Wine
Well, I've got wine/wine-dev/wine-dbg packages building right now :) wine: ~
Re: Debian packages of Wine
Ben Klein wrote: > > I've also been playing around with -Zlzma. I can only get my packages > down to about 11MB, even with dev headers removed. Is there anything > else you can think of that you've done differently or specially? Nope. You can look at the source package if you like, it's possible something is being deleted or not built (wine test?) -Scott Ritchie
Re: Debian packages of Wine
2009/1/18 Scott Ritchie : > Ben Klein wrote: >> Hi Maurilio, >> >> I see you've taken over building Lenny packages of Wine. Good work; at >> least now there are *some* updated packages available. >> >> I talked to Scott a while ago about taking over from him for all >> Debian package building. I have an automated build environment that >> builds packages for all variations from etch/i386 to sid/amd64 (even >> the very annoying-to-bulid-Wine-for etch/amd64). The one thing that >> was stopping me from fully taking over from Scott was I don't have the >> resources to host the packages. >> >> So I'm wondering the following: >> 1) Do you think it's worth supporting Etch? (I argue yes, because it's >> still stable) > > I gave up on Etch because of a few reasons. Etch was missing some > important libraries so bits of Wine would be nonfunctional on amd64, and > when users reported bugs on them because of debian brokenness it was an > added headache. Moreover, even at its peak the number of etch users was > only about 1% of the Ubuntu total. I know, it's a bitch. Biggest problem with supporting Etch/amd64 will be making sure the users install the dependencies properly. I could possibly do this by setting up a package (or series of packages) with the required 32bit libs and have them appear in the repository. >> 2) Are you interested in hosting my Etch and Sid packages? > > It's possible I guess, though it would be easier if you had your own > server so you wouldn't have to wait on me for uploads. Maurilio has offered to host my packages, which is probably neater than having a mixture of Etch, Sid and Ubuntu packages on budgetdedicated, and Lenny packages in his repository :) >> 3) I'm clueless as to how to correctly set up a repository, so all I >> have at the moment are the raw packages. Would you or Scott be able to >> help out with this? >> > > The repository software I use is reprepro, however there are others that > may be easier to set up. Maurilio and I have been discussing his repository. The only thing it's missing is a GPG key to stop the message about unauthorised packages. >> Thanks, >> Ben I've also been playing around with -Zlzma. I can only get my packages down to about 11MB, even with dev headers removed. Is there anything else you can think of that you've done differently or specially?
Re: Debian packages of Wine
Ben Klein wrote: > Hi Maurilio, > > I see you've taken over building Lenny packages of Wine. Good work; at > least now there are *some* updated packages available. > > I talked to Scott a while ago about taking over from him for all > Debian package building. I have an automated build environment that > builds packages for all variations from etch/i386 to sid/amd64 (even > the very annoying-to-bulid-Wine-for etch/amd64). The one thing that > was stopping me from fully taking over from Scott was I don't have the > resources to host the packages. > > So I'm wondering the following: > 1) Do you think it's worth supporting Etch? (I argue yes, because it's > still stable) I gave up on Etch because of a few reasons. Etch was missing some important libraries so bits of Wine would be nonfunctional on amd64, and when users reported bugs on them because of debian brokenness it was an added headache. Moreover, even at its peak the number of etch users was only about 1% of the Ubuntu total. > 2) Are you interested in hosting my Etch and Sid packages? It's possible I guess, though it would be easier if you had your own server so you wouldn't have to wait on me for uploads. > 3) I'm clueless as to how to correctly set up a repository, so all I > have at the moment are the raw packages. Would you or Scott be able to > help out with this? > The repository software I use is reprepro, however there are others that may be easier to set up. > Thanks, > Ben
Re: Debian packages of Wine
Lei Zhang wrote: > On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Bjoern Krombholz > wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Paul Bryan Roberts >> wrote: >>> I'm puzzled by the sizes of the packages. Packages for Debian by Maurilio >>> and James are 13-14 Mb to download whereas Ubuntu packages by Scott are >>> only 7-8 Mb. Anyone see any reason for this ? >> 1. Ubuntu debs are split into a base and a -dev pkg containing the includes. >> 2. Ubuntu debs are lzma compressed, while those for Debian are gzip'ed. >> >> >> /Björn >> >> >> > > Curious, what versions of Debian / Ubuntu supports lzma compressed > .deb packages? > > 8.10 Supports it natively, 8.04 does as well however policy says that 8.04 packages must pre-depend on the newer dpkg so that upgrades from earlier Ubuntus go well. Using lzma compression does make a huge difference. From the mirror's perspective, it's about 100 gigabytes of data a month. Thanks, Scott Ritchie
Re: Debian packages of Wine
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Bjoern Krombholz wrote: > On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Paul Bryan Roberts > wrote: >> I'm puzzled by the sizes of the packages. Packages for Debian by Maurilio >> and James are 13-14 Mb to download whereas Ubuntu packages by Scott are only >> 7-8 Mb. Anyone see any reason for this ? > > 1. Ubuntu debs are split into a base and a -dev pkg containing the includes. > 2. Ubuntu debs are lzma compressed, while those for Debian are gzip'ed. > > > /Björn > > > Curious, what versions of Debian / Ubuntu supports lzma compressed .deb packages?
Re: Debian packages of Wine
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 1:05 AM, Ben Klein wrote: >> 2. Ubuntu debs are lzma compressed, while those for Debian are gzip'ed. > > I'd expect this wouldn't make a big difference. Indeed, it does: /home/src/wine-git$ prefix=/tmp/wine-test make -e install ... /home/src/wine-git$ cd /tmp /tmp$ du -sh wine-test 138Mwine-test /tmp$ time tar --gzip -cf wine.tar.gz wine-test real0m11.310s user0m11.005s sys 0m0.312s /tmp$ time tar --bzip2 -cf wine.tar.bz2 wine-test real0m29.178s user0m28.882s sys 0m0.200s /tmp$ time tar --lzma -cf wine.tar.7z wine-test real1m32.890s user1m32.530s sys 0m0.328s /tmp$ ls -sh wine.tar.* 26M wine.tar.7z 39M wine.tar.bz2 41M wine.tar.gz
Re: Debian packages of Wine
2009/1/17 Bjoern Krombholz : > On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Paul Bryan Roberts > wrote: >> I'm puzzled by the sizes of the packages. Packages for Debian by Maurilio >> and James are 13-14 Mb to download whereas Ubuntu packages by Scott are only >> 7-8 Mb. Anyone see any reason for this ? > > 1. Ubuntu debs are split into a base and a -dev pkg containing the includes. Aha! I thought I didn't have headers in my packages. Ideally, I'd want to produce -dev packages separately, as the average user doesn't build libwine packages. Maybe Scott can help with this :) > 2. Ubuntu debs are lzma compressed, while those for Debian are gzip'ed. I'd expect this wouldn't make a big difference. > /Björn
Re: Debian packages of Wine
On Fr, 2009-01-16 at 07:11 +, Paul Bryan Roberts wrote: > I'm puzzled by the sizes of the packages. > Packages for Debian by Maurilio and James are 13-14 Mb to download > whereas Ubuntu packages by Scott are only 7-8 Mb. Anyone see any reason for > this ? deb support different compression types: gz, bzip and lzma You can use "ar -x name.deb" to get the content. Scott has a seperate devel package and is using lzma for the data. unpacked: 55850kB wine + 13960KB wine-dev The other package is using gz. unpacked: 69180KB wine with wine-dev -- By by ... Detlef
Re: Debian packages of Wine
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Paul Bryan Roberts wrote: > I'm puzzled by the sizes of the packages. Packages for Debian by Maurilio > and James are 13-14 Mb to download whereas Ubuntu packages by Scott are only > 7-8 Mb. Anyone see any reason for this ? 1. Ubuntu debs are split into a base and a -dev pkg containing the includes. 2. Ubuntu debs are lzma compressed, while those for Debian are gzip'ed. /Björn
Re: Debian packages of Wine
Maurilio is doing a great job providing Lenny packages for Wine. The site at http://wine.x.pl has been providing Wine packages for Etch for some time. x86 only I'm afraid. The site's author is very modest but I believe it's a chap named James Huk who used to send messages to the wine-user mailing list letting people know he'd put up a new package. James claimed his packages work under Lenny as well as Etch and I have used them this way before Maurilio started putting up packages built specifically for Lenny. Is there really that much difference ? I'm puzzled by the sizes of the packages. Packages for Debian by Maurilio and James are 13-14 Mb to download whereas Ubuntu packages by Scott are only 7-8 Mb. Anyone see any reason for this ? Cheers, PBR
