From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Jul 8 1: 0:35 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 893F737B40A for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 01:00:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 12-234-90-219.client.attbi.com (12-234-90-219.client.attbi.com [12.234.90.219]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2F2643E52 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 01:00:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from DougB@FreeBSD.org) Received: from Master.gorean.org (master.gorean.org [10.0.0.2]) by 12-234-90-219.client.attbi.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g6880IC0094671; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 01:00:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from DougB@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (doug@localhost) by Master.gorean.org (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g687WK11002402; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 00:32:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Master.gorean.org: doug owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 00:32:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton To: Mark Valentine Cc: Garrett Wollman , Subject: Re: Package system flaws? In-Reply-To: <200207080714.g687EH6t047234@dotar.thuvia.org> Message-ID: <20020708001921.C2247-100000@master.gorean.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Mark Valentine wrote: > > From: Doug Barton > > Date: Sun 7 Jul, 2002 > > Subject: Re: Package system flaws? > > > One of the reasons I suggested the "compress the binaries, then compress > > the metadata plus binary tarball" method is that it is more space > > efficient. > > Compressing the "metadata + binary tarball" just lost you the ability to > access the metadata without uncompressing the whole caboodle. Well, if people are dead set on having both things in the same package (I still think two seperate files is a cleaner solution) then as long as the binaries are compressed efficiently (using tar + bzip or some such) then we can use a less efficient, though more friendly alternative to compress the metadata + binary bit. Assuming that we use the most efficient means possible to compress the binaries (and by binaries I of course mean "what the package is designed to install") then it's not going to compress further, no matter what method we use to squish the two together. > It isn't _all_ about space (but space helps a lot). Don't underestimate this factor. Pushing the packages out to ftp-master from bento is already a limiting factor on how often we can update the package set. We also have to take foreign mirrors, and users who pay for every byte they download into account. There is also another reason to consider seperating the binary tarball and the metadata that I haven't mentioned yet. And actually, now that I think of it more it's another good reason to seperate the two things into different files. If I have package A that depends on package B, under the current system if we up the version of package B, we have to re-roll package A altogether just to update the dependency data, even though nothing about the binary has, or needs to change. By seperating the metadata and the binaries we can just update the metadata with the new dependency and push just that. > See my earlier suggestion which was basically "compress the binaries, > then _archive_ the metadata plus binary tarball". Sorry to say I skimmed that too rapidly. It sounds like we agree roughly on this point, although I'd love for us to use a non-GNU tool for this (sorry, blatant prejudice there). Doug -- "We have known freedom's price. We have shown freedom's power. And in this great conflict, ... we will see freedom's victory." - George W. Bush, President of the United States State of the Union, January 28, 2002 Do YOU Yahoo!? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message