Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 18:49:06 +0200 From: Stefan Eggers <seggers@semyam.dinoco.de> To: Hubert Feyrer <hubert.feyrer@rrzc1.rz.uni-regensburg.de> Cc: Stefan Eggers <seggers@semyam.dinoco.de>, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Size of a port... Message-ID: <199806221649.SAA12938@semyam.dinoco.de> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 22 Jun 1998 16:41:19 %2B0200." <Pine.SOL.3.90.980622162812.1096M-100000@rrzc6>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I would have liked "-s" for the size file and "-S" for the size file
> > w/o actually creating a package.
>
> Hum... well, I don't really see the point in that intermediate file, but
> if you think it's necessary... :-) What mechanism do you use to store
How else would you do the package registration (as pkg_add does it)
from the ports collection? Making a package and then a pkg_add? A
little bit expensive and slow. :-)
Take a look at the process of registering in /usr/share/mk/bsd.port.mk
to find out why this option is necessary for the way I did it.
> this in precopiled packages and to retrieve it? (I.e. what format did you
> use in the +CONTENTS file)
I added another file. I like to be able to easily access the package
database manually so for me the additional file +SIZE is the right
solution. It will also help scripts that want to look at this infor-
mation w/o much effort.
If it is a problem I can of course change this to a new line type in
the +CONTENT file.
> I hope you aren't depending on the ports collection (and thus your
> size-file) being installed when trying to find out the size of some
> package in - say - an ftp-install. :}
I am not stupid. :)
No, the only things I left out are using the dependencies in pkg_info
to get the size of other packages which would be unnecessary once the
package gets removed. Otherwise it should be as complete as I think
it can be.
Hm. How about this format:
6.8 MByte for crafty-book-large
(depending on
640 KByte for crafty-16.789
100 KByte for libxyz-0.99
also used by appxyz-1.2,
megamonster-99.123 and
mightybad-0.0)
One would get to know what this depends on, how large those packages
are and who else uses them. The only problem is how to do it recur-
sively. It will look very, very ugly. :-)
But at least such a nonrecursive version is a step in the right
direction and should make it easier to see where one can save much
space. In any case it is better than having the list of required
packages and the size separated as a simple pkg_info has it.
> Moreover, imagine the impact of other package variables like
> NOPORTSDIR(sp?) employed at pkg create time, which will also result in
> the pkg size differ.
>
> (The reason I try to argue here is to get *BSD not too far apart - at
> least from the interface's point of view :-)
I didn't do any size files in the ports collection, yet. If I put
them in they are just a byproduct of the size table (to help
sysinstall) generation and not useful for anything else.
The easiest and most simple solution that crossed my mind so far is a
file with just the size and a name like package+SIZE in the place the
package gets created. Then one could just pretty much cat them
together and the table is finished.
The thing that I don't like about this is that it adds a lot of new
files w/o much benefit. Maybe someone has a prettier solution which
is not too hard to implement.
Stefan.
--
Stefan Eggers Lu4 yao2 zhi1 ma3 li4,
Max-Slevogt-Str. 1 ri4 jiu3 jian4 ren2 xin1.
51109 Koeln
Federal Republic of Germany
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199806221649.SAA12938>