Date: 29 Sep 1997 11:51:31 -0500 From: stephen farrell <stephen@farrell.org> To: jgrosch@superior.mooseriver.com Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Uh oh.. Time to take another look at the packages collection! Message-ID: <87d8ls6p2k.fsf@phaedrus.uchicago.edu> In-Reply-To: Josef Grosch's message of "Mon, 29 Sep 1997 00:21:37 -0700" References: <19970928234543.04027@mooseriver.com> <9231.875515867@time.cdrom.com> <19970929002137.48137@mooseriver.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Josef Grosch <jgrosch@superior.mooseriver.com> writes: > Yes, and the more I think about it the uglier it gets. Just for the sake of > argument lets say you wish to install package A which is on CD 1. Package A > has dependency on packages B, C, D. Packages B and C are on CD 2 and D is > on CD 1. So your "New and Improved" package system chugs along copying > packages A and D to a tmp space then demands that you umount CD 1 and mount > CD 2. It copys packages B and C to the tmp space then finds that > package B has a dependency on package E which is on CD 1. So now you have to > unmount CD 2 and mount CD 1. > > You can see what a bummer this can become. The package system will need to > know _ALL_ dependences of a package in order to minimize CD swaping but it > will cause large amounts of tmp space to be eaten up. Let us pray that DVD > drops in price real soon and becomes the standard distribution media. Well, if you put all the packages that might be depended upon only on one cd, then you substantially reduce the likelihood of this problem occurring, or at least the impact of it. -- Steve Farrell
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?87d8ls6p2k.fsf>