More space saving ideas

[Kevin Fenzi]

It seems we need to free up more space to get to the 700mb target, even
if libgcj gone. ;( 

Some other ideas: 

-evince +xpdf

	This also lets us remove nautilus, so -20MB +3=-17MB

-inkscape

	Yes, it's a lovely program, but the design-suite has it now and
	someone can install it if they need it. It and it's deps saves
	us: 63MB

Any other thoughts?

kevin

[Dominic Hopf]

Am Dienstag, den 23.03.2010, 16:23 -0600 schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
>  It seems we need to free up more space to get to the 700mb target,
> even
>  if libgcj gone. ;( 
>  
>  Some other ideas: 
>  
>  -evince +xpdf
>  
>  	This also lets us remove nautilus, so -20MB +3=-17MB 
What about epdfview instead?
Not sure which dependency's it exactly
needs and how big they are, but the x86_64 RPM for it just takes 128K. 

>  -inkscape
>  
>  	Yes, it's a lovely program, but the design-suite has it now and
>  	someone can install it if they need it. It and it's deps saves
>  	us: 63MB 
ACK.

Regards,
Dominic

-- 
Dominic Hopf <dmaphy(a)googlemail.com&gt;

http://dominichopf.de/

Key Fingerprint:
A7DF C4FC 07AE 4DDC 5CA0 BD93 AAB0 6019 CA7D 868D

[Christoph Wickert]

Am Mittwoch, den 24.03.2010, 00:00 +0100 schrieb Dominic Hopf:
>  Am Dienstag, den 23.03.2010, 16:23 -0600 schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
>  > It seems we need to free up more space to get to the 700mb target, even
>  > if libgcj gone. ;(  
Huh?
You said that removing libgcj will save us 62 MB. We were at 746 MB, so
we should already be at 684 MB. Or do I miss something obvious?

>  > Some other ideas: 
>  > 
>  > -evince +xpdf
>  > 
>  > 	This also lets us remove nautilus, so -20MB +3=-17MB
>  What about epdfview instead? 
+1 for epdfview.

>  > -inkscape
>  
>  ACK. 
+1, we can remove it.

Thanks for this suggestions, Kevin. Nevertheless I'd like check the list
that Stephen has posted on f-d-l [1] to see which packages were added
due to Requires and which ones due to comps. If they are just default in
comps, we can remove some of them.

Regards,
Christoph

[1]
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-March/133972.html

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 00:48:32 +0100
Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote:

>  Am Mittwoch, den 24.03.2010, 00:00 +0100 schrieb Dominic Hopf:
>  > Am Dienstag, den 23.03.2010, 16:23 -0600 schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
>  > > It seems we need to free up more space to get to the 700mb
>  > > target, even if libgcj gone. ;( 
>  
>  Huh?
>  You said that removing libgcj will save us 62 MB. We were at 746 MB,
>  so we should already be at 684 MB. Or do I miss something obvious? 
it was 62MB on disk installed... 

>  > > Some other ideas: 
>  > > 
>  > > -evince +xpdf
>  > > 
>  > > 	This also lets us remove nautilus, so -20MB +3=-17MB
>  > What about epdfview instead?
>  
>  +1 for epdfview.
>  
>  > > -inkscape
>  > 
>  > ACK.
>  
>  +1, we can remove it. 
ok. 

>  Thanks for this suggestions, Kevin. Nevertheless I'd like check
> the
>  list that Stephen has posted on f-d-l [1] to see which packages were
>  added due to Requires and which ones due to comps. If they are just
>  default in comps, we can remove some of them. 
Sure. 

I will make the above changes tomorrow unless someone beats me to
it. ;) 

Feel free to propose additional ones. 

kevin

[Christoph Wickert]

Am Dienstag, den 23.03.2010, 18:54 -0600 schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
>  On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 00:48:32 +0100
>  Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote:
>  
>  > Am Mittwoch, den 24.03.2010, 00:00 +0100 schrieb Dominic Hopf:
>  > > Am Dienstag, den 23.03.2010, 16:23 -0600 schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
>  > >
>  > > > Some other ideas: 
>  > > > 
>  > > > -evince +xpdf
>  > > > 
>  > > > 	This also lets us remove nautilus, so -20MB +3=-17MB
>  > > What about epdfview instead?
>  > 
>  > +1 for epdfview. 
Not sure if we really should go with epdfview. We should try to free
evince of nautilus, so I filed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=576435

Regards,
Christoph

[Johannes Lips]

On 03/24/2010 03:30 AM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>  Am Dienstag, den 23.03.2010, 18:54 -0600 schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
>     
> > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 00:48:32 +0100
> > Christoph Wickert<christoph.wickert(a)googlemail.com>  wrote:
> >
> >      
> >> Am Mittwoch, den 24.03.2010, 00:00 +0100 schrieb Dominic Hopf:
> >>        
> >>> Am Dienstag, den 23.03.2010, 16:23 -0600 schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
> >>>
> >>>          
> >>>> Some other ideas:
> >>>>
> >>>> -evince +xpdf
> >>>>
> >>>> 	This also lets us remove nautilus, so -20MB +3=-17MB
> >>>>            
> >>> What about epdfview instead?
> >>>          
> >> +1 for epdfview.
> >>        
>  Not sure if we really should go with epdfview. We should try to free
>  evince of nautilus, so I filed
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=576435
>
>      
Hey,
would be great if the dependency would be removed. But I also don't see 
much disadvantages of epdfview. As far as I could see there aren't 
any/many features missing. Or does it needs also many dependencies?

Greetings,

Johannes
>  Regards,
>  Christoph
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  xfce mailing list
>  xfce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce
>

[Christoph Wickert]

Am Dienstag, den 30.03.2010, 22:31 +0200 schrieb Johannes Lips:
>  On 03/24/2010 03:30 AM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>  >  
>  > Not sure if we really should go with epdfview. We should try to free
>  > evince of nautilus, so I filed
>  > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=576435
>  >
>  >    
>  Hey,
>  would be great if the dependency would be removed. But I also don't see 
>  much disadvantages of epdfview. As far as I could see there aren't 
>  any/many features missing. Or does it needs also many dependencies? 
IMHO evince has more features: More backends, document properties, more
views, e.g. two pages or presentation mode, the sidebar has more views
too and so on. But if the evince maintainer doesn't respond to the bug
we should consider switching.

Regards,
Christoph

[Dominic Hopf]

Am Dienstag, den 30.03.2010, 23:28 +0200 schrieb Christoph Wickert:
>  Am Dienstag, den 30.03.2010, 22:31 +0200 schrieb Johannes Lips:
>  > On 03/24/2010 03:30 AM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>  > >  
>  > > Not sure if we really should go with epdfview. We should try to free
>  > > evince of nautilus, so I filed
>  > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=576435
>  > >
>  > >    
>  > Hey,
>  > would be great if the dependency would be removed. But I also don't see 
>  > much disadvantages of epdfview. As far as I could see there aren't 
>  > any/many features missing. Or does it needs also many dependencies?
>  
>  IMHO evince has more features: More backends, document properties, more
>  views, e.g. two pages or presentation mode, the sidebar has more views
>  too and so on. But if the evince maintainer doesn't respond to the bug
>  we should consider switching. 
I actually didn't notice those features before. If that isn't just me,
switching to epdfview would be worth it. :)

Regards,
Dominic

-- 
Dominic Hopf <dmaphy(a)googlemail.com&gt;

http://dominichopf.de/

Key Fingerprint:
A7DF C4FC 07AE 4DDC 5CA0 BD93 AAB0 6019 CA7D 868D

[Adam Miller]

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com&gt; wrote:
>  It seems we need to free up more space to get to the 700mb target,
> even
>  if libgcj gone. ;(
>
>  Some other ideas:
>
>  -evince +xpdf
>
>         This also lets us remove nautilus, so -20MB +3=-17MB 
+1 to epdfview instead of xpdf unless we can get Chrisoph's bug
expedited by F13 release

>  -inkscape
>
>         Yes, it's a lovely program, but the design-suite has it now and
>         someone can install it if they need it. It and it's deps saves
>         us: 63MB
>  
<SNIP>

+1

-AdamM

-- 
http://maxamillion.googlepages.com
---------------------------------------------------------
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments