On Friday 26 October 2007 07:42:09 am seth vidal wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 14:19 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 26.10.2007 13:55, David Timms wrote:
> > David Boles wrote:
> >> on 10/26/2007 6:25 AM, David Timms wrote:
> >>> Peter Gordon wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 21:45 -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
> >>>
> >>> And it would be nice for both of them to "talk" in the same
> >>> language or better show both eg:
> >>> package download size install size
> >>> fred-1.0.1 100kB 665kB
> >>>
> >>> Along with the totals for the transaction set:
> >>> 4.678MB 13.434MB
> >>
> >> You are joking here correct? You 'expect' a compressed file
> >> to 'announce' it's installed size?
> >
> > Yeah.
> > It wouldn't need to be perfect {eg when scripts generate
> > further data during the install}.
> > What OS does that?
> > Like zipinfo. Maybe a new feature to include in rpm metadata
> > itself ? Maybe Fedora needs to be first modern one ?
It wouldn't be the first. (see below)
> It's likely easier -- the rpm header contains all the
needed
> info already afaik. And it's even in the data that yum
> downloads afaics; take a look at the file
> /updates/7/x86_64/repodata/primary.xml.gz on your favorite
> mirror and you'll for each package see something like this:
>
> [...]
> <size package="400311" installed="1213843"
> archive="1218576"/> [...]
>
> I suppose that's the data that is needed and it's likely in the
> primary.sqlite.bz2 (which yum prefers these days iirc) as well.
>
> David, maybe just file a bug as RFE and see what happens.
I can tell you what'll happen :)
The issue is where to put the data on the screen and how to keep
from confusing the user. We could definitely say 'total installed
size' in the total summary but putting installed size next to
download size for each package just eats up valuable screen
real-estate on a console.
So if you want to file a bug, no problem, just have a suggestion
on where you want this to show up.
-sv
I came to rawhide from cooker (Mandriva) almost two years ago.
Mdv's utility (urpmi) displayed disk space needed rather than d/l
size. Most urpmi complaints on the cooker ML were that d/l size
should be displayed, not disk space. As when updating, disk space
change is negligible, but d/l size is much more important. I used
40%, eg, if urpmi announced the updates totaled 200MB, the
approximate d/l would be 80MB's. On coming to Fedora, one of the
things I appreciated most was that yum displayed d/l size(s)/total,
not mostly useless disk space needed. Please keep it that way.
--
Tom Brinkman Corpus Christi, Texas