On 1/23/21 5:43 PM, Maarten de Vries wrote:
> To get an idea, I ran `pacman -S postfix` in a clean chroot, and the result is
> 41.36 MB of extra disk usage (ignoring the package cache), 36.26 MB of which
> is for different backends (pcre and sqlite were already pulled in by the base
> package). Whe
On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 at 23:46, Maarten de Vries via arch-general
wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 at 00:02, David C. Rankin via arch-general <
> arch-general@lists.archlinux.org> wrote:
>
> > Archdevs,
> >
> > Why are we splitting postfix by backend? Currently the package is only
> > 1.5M
On 1/23/21 5:58 PM, David C. Rankin via arch-general wrote:
Archdevs,
I see dracut is creeping into the system. Which I see as fine, SuSE has used
dracut for a couple of years and it has proven to be quite robust. But I do
have a question on roll-out and what will be required on the user's pa
Hey,
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 at 00:02, David C. Rankin via arch-general <
arch-general@lists.archlinux.org> wrote:
> Archdevs,
>
> Why are we splitting postfix by backend? Currently the package is only
> 1.5M
> total. Why would we want to fragment postfix backend capability into
> separate
> packag
Archdevs,
Why are we splitting postfix by backend? Currently the package is only 1.5M
total. Why would we want to fragment postfix backend capability into separate
packages? With 1T+ average drive size the additional fragmentation doesn't
make any space savings sense.
Forwarded Messag
Archdevs,
I see dracut is creeping into the system. Which I see as fine, SuSE has used
dracut for a couple of years and it has proven to be quite robust. But I do
have a question on roll-out and what will be required on the user's part. I
have begun seeing, e.g.:
New optional dependencies for b
