On Monday 23 August 2010 13:02:48 Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com> (10/08/2010): > > Splitting the package would be a reasonable thing to do from the > > point of view of the package size, but IMO it's not unreasonable for > > architectures where this is enabled to have packages of this size. > > I'm not sure I get your point here (extra negation?).
I hope that rephrasing helps. From the point of view of the package size without any other considerations, it might be reasonable (theoretically, problems aside) to split it. But it's also reasonable, for a 3D library/framework with stuff as osgIntrospection enabled in some architectures (i386, amd64), to occupy 100MB. I don't think that it should be surprising that a complex package occupies that much, other than reaching that conclusion after comparing it with the size before enabling osgIntrospection (which it was the fact originating this bug report). My current laptop, more than 2 years old, has a disk of 120GB; this package would occupy 0.1% the size of the disk. OpenOffice.org Writer occupies 25MB+125MB of the -core package, apart from other dependencies. TexLive probably surpasses by far the 100MB mark. So, other than in specific architectures (arm, mips, ...) the size shouldn't be a problem in general, for complex packages. I think that Alberto's reply addresses the rest of the issues raised in your comment. We enabled osgIntrospection as of late just in amd64 (and kfreebsd, same archs as linux) after people was requesting it (here and in Ubuntu). Discussing the request among the current package maintainers, we though that it would make sense to enable in the platforms/arches where it would not be a serious burden (e.g. archs for embedded systems), and where developers could make use of it (nobody is going to do OSG development in a HPPA machine). So if it was enabled in i386 for a long time, and nobody complained about this (there were only complaints about the lack of it), why should not be enabled in amd64? Anyway, the most important thing --as Alberto explained-- is that the problem will go away in the next release. Cheers. -- Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
