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?
Well,
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 relevant
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 existing
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 would be
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?
Well, before
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 exepect
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 as
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
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.
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
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 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
generate
12 matches
Mail list logo
