Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 12:39:23 -0500 (EST) From: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com> To: jhb@FreeBSD.org Cc: obrien@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/sysinstall install.c installUpgrade Message-ID: <200204051739.g35HdNnF011187@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20020405110605.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 5 Apr, John Baldwin wrote: > > On 05-Apr-2002 David O'Brien wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 09:36:57AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: >>> 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. [...] > No. You could achieve something similar like we do with xemacs by > having a vim-share package and then vim and vim-lite packages that > just have the binaries. However, now you have 3 different packages > with which to further confuse the user. The tar vs. zip thing has to > do with zip having an index so that all the metadata is collected > in one place as I've explained earlier. Does that mean, that in order to have the new vim-package will always contain vim and vim-lite binaries in one *file*? > They aren't just different compression formats they are very different > archive formats as well. The reason we have different vim packages is > due to the limitations of our current package system and libh attempts > to use a new design that doesn't have the same limitations (though it > does have some limitations, and it does make package generation more > difficult I'm afraid). Actually, the same goal -- separating out common parts -- can be achieved now -- look at how databases/postgresql7 is split into many optional parts, which are all built from the same source code... We could have vim, vim-lite both RUN_DEPEND on vim-share. The three packages combined will be smaller than the zip with all of them inside, and one will only need to download the flavor (vim or vim-lite) one needs. But, I guess, you are trying to make it possible for the user to select various other options at the install-time, which requires finer tuning and mixing of the different sets of files (chunks). And I think, those different sets should be separate, compressed as hard as possible. Their storage can either be subdirectories or -- for neatness -- tar or the store-only mode of zip. All I'm talking about is that the "size matters" -- something DSL links and fat disks help forget :-) ... -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?200204051739.g35HdNnF011187>