Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 15:14:27 +0930 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Uh oh.. Time to take another look at the packages collection! Message-ID: <19970929151427.43719@lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <8460.875510079@time.cdrom.com>; from Jordan K. Hubbard on Sun, Sep 28, 1997 at 10:14:39PM -0700 References: <8460.875510079@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Sep 28, 1997 at 10:14:39PM -0700, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > The FreeBSD-current packages collection currently requires 713MB, not > counting the filename information itself (which, on CDs, is stored > very wastefully and generally accounts for another 30-40MB in cases > like this where you have hundreds of files). I don't need to tell > anyone here that 750MB does *not* fit on a single CD, and even with > 4 CDs for 3.0 we're going to run into problems just organizing it. > > So, as I see it, we have two alternatives: > > 1. Come up with a "reduced set" of packages which we'll provide that > way, the goal being to provide 650MB or less of "quality" packages > rather than going for the kitchen-sink approach. That way flamewar lies. And if not flamewar, then possibly because only one person knows a certain package, and has decided it's not that hot. He could be wrong. > 2. Come up with a way of splitting the packages collection into multiple > pieces, each piece having its own INDEX file and such. Sounds like the way to go. Is it so difficult? We could go for a purely alphabetical split, or maybe figure out some easily-understood functional split. Whatever we choose should be expandable for the estimated 1.5 GB in 4.0. Greg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970929151427.43719>