package changes size?

[Tom Brinkman]

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