| 1 |
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:36:11 +0000 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:28:46 +0100 |
| 5 |
> Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > If you don't explicitly need compression, don't do anything. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > ... and mark relevant stuff as "ok to be compressed with whatever |
| 9 |
> > suits you best"... sounds familiar? :) |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> No. That's entirely the wrong approach, |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I would call it an "unperfect yet useful approach" that unfortunately |
| 14 |
we've been using for eapi 0-2. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> because it relies upon every |
| 17 |
> ebuild having support for it, and most don't. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
That's why it needs to be improved. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> The right approach, if |
| 22 |
> you can demonstrate that there's a genuine benefit to compressing |
| 23 |
> documentation, is to make a proposal for a future EAPI for compression |
| 24 |
> by default for certain directories, with an override available for |
| 25 |
> ebuilds that need specific behaviour. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
And I agree this is the right solution but yet unimplemented... |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> > > And if you're trying to make a space-critical distribution, start |
| 30 |
> > > looking at the big things, not the 4% things. |
| 31 |
> > |
| 32 |
> > When I do something space critical I exclude /usr/share/doc and a |
| 33 |
> > couple of others... that doesn't mean I do like wasting space on |
| 34 |
> > something not space critical when compression algorithms exist. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> If you care about space, focus on something relevant. |
| 37 |
[...] |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
You got me wrong there it seems: I do not care about space, however I |
| 40 |
do care about useless waste of space. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Alexis. |
Archives