I was just wondering if anyone here knows why the OO.org packages on RHEL/Centos are so huge. Eg. On Mandriva 2006: 40834529 OpenOffice.org 113064600 OpenOffice.org-libs 20124669 OpenOffice.org-help-en 19976941 OpenOffice.org-l10n-en
= ~185MB
On Centos 4: 683298379 openoffice.org-i18n 124072694 openoffice.org 111894560 openoffice.org-libs
= ~876MB!!
When I say 'installed by default' I mean that I selected the 'Office' package group during the install of both OSes and didn't make any custom package selections. Both OSes have OO.org 1.1 working fine, I'm just wondering why costs me nearly 5 times as much disk space on RHEL/Centos than it does on another distro?
Were did you get your packages from (what version?):
On my mirror in /centos/4.2/os/SRPMS: 181772014 Sep 1 01:04 openoffice.org-1.1.2-28.6.0.EL4.src.rpm and in /centos/4.2/os/i386/CentOS/RPMS: 122007463 Aug 23 12:10 openoffice.org-i18n-1.1.2-28.6.0.EL4.i386.rpm 35739789 Aug 23 12:10 openoffice.org-1.1.2-28.6.0.EL4.i386.rpm 40267738 Aug 23 12:11 openoffice.org-libs-1.1.2-28.6.0.EL4.i386.rpm 105134 Aug 23 12:10 openoffice.org-kde-1.1.2-28.6.0.EL4.i386.rpm total 195MB or thereabouts
Cheers, MaZe.
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Tim Edwards wrote:
I was just wondering if anyone here knows why the OO.org packages on RHEL/Centos are so huge. Eg. On Mandriva 2006: 40834529 OpenOffice.org 113064600 OpenOffice.org-libs 20124669 OpenOffice.org-help-en 19976941 OpenOffice.org-l10n-en
= ~185MB
On Centos 4: 683298379 openoffice.org-i18n 124072694 openoffice.org 111894560 openoffice.org-libs
= ~876MB!!
When I say 'installed by default' I mean that I selected the 'Office' package group during the install of both OSes and didn't make any custom package selections. Both OSes have OO.org 1.1 working fine, I'm just wondering why costs me nearly 5 times as much disk space on RHEL/Centos than it does on another distro?
Maciej Żenczykowski wrote:
Were did you get your packages from (what version?):
On my mirror in /centos/4.2/os/SRPMS: 181772014 Sep 1 01:04 openoffice.org-1.1.2-28.6.0.EL4.src.rpm and in /centos/4.2/os/i386/CentOS/RPMS: 122007463 Aug 23 12:10 openoffice.org-i18n-1.1.2-28.6.0.EL4.i386.rpm 35739789 Aug 23 12:10 openoffice.org-1.1.2-28.6.0.EL4.i386.rpm 40267738 Aug 23 12:11 openoffice.org-libs-1.1.2-28.6.0.EL4.i386.rpm 105134 Aug 23 12:10 openoffice.org-kde-1.1.2-28.6.0.EL4.i386.rpm total 195MB or thereabouts
Cheers, MaZe.
I forgot to mention I'm going by the Size of the files in the package when uncompressed (ie. installed), using rpm -qi. So the ~120MB openoffice.org-i18n package exapnds out to other 600MB when you install it for example.
I forgot to mention I'm going by the Size of the files in the package when uncompressed (ie. installed), using rpm -qi. So the ~120MB openoffice.org-i18n package exapnds out to other 600MB when you install it for example.
Ah, that does indeed seem to use up 925M. looking around on my disk it seems most of this is in: /usr/lib/ooo-1.1/program/resource [599M]
Probably data for different language versions?
Cheers, MaZe.
On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 12:39 +1100, Tim Edwards wrote:
I was just wondering if anyone here knows why the OO.org packages on RHEL/Centos are so huge. Eg. On Mandriva 2006: 40834529 OpenOffice.org 113064600 OpenOffice.org-libs 20124669 OpenOffice.org-help-en 19976941 OpenOffice.org-l10n-en
= ~185MB
On Centos 4: 683298379 openoffice.org-i18n 124072694 openoffice.org 111894560 openoffice.org-libs
= ~876MB!!
When I say 'installed by default' I mean that I selected the 'Office' package group during the install of both OSes and didn't make any custom package selections. Both OSes have OO.org 1.1 working fine, I'm just wondering why costs me nearly 5 times as much disk space on RHEL/Centos than it does on another distro?
You must be looking at expanded size and not RPM size.
I think it is because there is one international version that contains support for all languages. Looks like the installed mandriva packages are english only.
I checked the RH size and it is comparable.
Johnny Hughes wrote:
You must be looking at expanded size and not RPM size.
I think it is because there is one international version that contains support for all languages. Looks like the installed mandriva packages are english only.
I checked the RH size and it is comparable.
Yeah that looks like it. Why-oh-why couldn't RH do the smart thing and split it out into language packages like Mandriva? I'll have to remember to set my partition size when installing RH distros to 7 or 10GB, not 5.
Am Mi, den 14.12.2005 schrieb Tim Edwards um 3:08:
Yeah that looks like it. Why-oh-why couldn't RH do the smart thing and split it out into language packages like Mandriva? I'll have to remember to set my partition size when installing RH distros to 7 or 10GB, not 5.
Red Hat does so since Fedora Core 4.
Alexander
On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 03:28 +0100, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
Am Mi, den 14.12.2005 schrieb Tim Edwards um 3:08:
Yeah that looks like it. Why-oh-why couldn't RH do the smart thing and split it out into language packages like Mandriva? I'll have to remember to set my partition size when installing RH distros to 7 or 10GB, not 5.
Red Hat does so since Fedora Core 4.
Right ... remember that you are comparing CentOS-4 (based on FC3) with the latest release of Mandriva. They are doing it different now too.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 09:11:44PM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
Yeah that looks like it. Why-oh-why couldn't RH do the smart thing and split it out into language packages like Mandriva? I'll have to remember to set my partition size when installing RH distros to 7 or 10GB, not 5.
Red Hat does so since Fedora Core 4.
Right ... remember that you are comparing CentOS-4 (based on FC3) with the latest release of Mandriva. They are doing it different now too.
It is more than that.
I remember talking to Jeff Johnson a few years ago. I was working at Conectiva, and contributing code to rpm. The subject of our discussion was package splitting.
Conectiva was known for splitting everything into multiple packages. glibc alone was separed in 40+ packages.
Jeff said that they, at RedHat, didn't agree with package splitting. It makes maintenance harder, installing more confusing for the users and, to quote him "harddisk space is cheap".
So I have to say that this issue goes way back, and is not as recent as FC4. I don't remember the exact date of this discussion, but I think it was 2000 or 2001.
Best Regards,
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
It is more than that.
I remember talking to Jeff Johnson a few years ago. I was working at Conectiva, and contributing code to rpm. The subject of our discussion was package splitting.
Conectiva was known for splitting everything into multiple packages. glibc alone was separed in 40+ packages.
Jeff said that they, at RedHat, didn't agree with package splitting. It makes maintenance harder, installing more confusing for the users and, to quote him "harddisk space is cheap".
So I have to say that this issue goes way back, and is not as recent as FC4. I don't remember the exact date of this discussion, but I think it was 2000 or 2001.
Yeah a quick check of the mirros shows Mandrake have been splitting it into language packages since it first appeared in the main repoisitory in 9.2 (Oct 2003).
On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 14:46 +1100, Tim Edwards wrote:
Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
It is more than that.
I remember talking to Jeff Johnson a few years ago. I was working at Conectiva, and contributing code to rpm. The subject of our discussion was package splitting.
Conectiva was known for splitting everything into multiple packages. glibc alone was separed in 40+ packages.
Jeff said that they, at RedHat, didn't agree with package splitting. It makes maintenance harder, installing more confusing for the users and, to quote him "harddisk space is cheap".
So I have to say that this issue goes way back, and is not as recent as FC4. I don't remember the exact date of this discussion, but I think it was 2000 or 2001.
Yeah a quick check of the mirros shows Mandrake have been splitting it into language packages since it first appeared in the main repoisitory in 9.2 (Oct 2003).
Well .. OK, I won't get in to political distro discussions ... however; CentOS is cloning this condition very well ... and did I mention that CentOS is free :)
Johnny Hughes wrote:
Well .. OK, I won't get in to political distro discussions ... however; CentOS is cloning this condition very well ... and did I mention that CentOS is free :)
Fair enough, I was just curious about why the huge size difference. And Mandrake/riva is free too :)
On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 14:53 +1100, Tim Edwards wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
Well .. OK, I won't get in to political distro discussions ... however; CentOS is cloning this condition very well ... and did I mention that CentOS is free :)
Fair enough, I was just curious about why the huge size difference. And Mandrake/riva is free too :)
Not the REAL mandriva version ... but a free watered down one that is released a couple months after the paid (full) version ... which is better than distros that don't do that. But I wouldn't call it free ... I could be wrong though :)
AND ... if you don't have a subscription, try to get the Mandriva Corporate base or update SRPMS, let alone the RPMS.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 10:02:55PM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
AND ... if you don't have a subscription, try to get the Mandriva Corporate base or update SRPMS, let alone the RPMS.
Which is impossible, as far as I can tell. I have several inside contacts on Mandriva, and just bounced around for 2 months trying to get them to release the SRPMS.
Then again, this discussions reminds me I have to try it again :)
[]s
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
Johnny Hughes wrote:
Not the REAL mandriva version ... but a free watered down one that is released a couple months after the paid (full) version ... which is better than distros that don't do that. But I wouldn't call it free ... I could be wrong though :)
AND ... if you don't have a subscription, try to get the Mandriva Corporate base or update SRPMS, let alone the RPMS.
No it is actually the "real" Mandriva version - once you've setup the free repositories (easyurpmi.zarb.org) you have access to all the stuff thats in the boxed-set or club versions, except of course the packages of closed-source stuff (Nvidia, Flash, Java etc.). All the updates are free and the SRPMs are available on all the mirror sites, don't know about the 'Corporate' version though.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 02:53:52PM +1100, Tim Edwards wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
Well .. OK, I won't get in to political distro discussions ... however; CentOS is cloning this condition very well ... and did I mention that CentOS is free :)
Fair enough, I was just curious about why the huge size difference. And Mandrake/riva is free too :)
Actually, the "free" edition of Mandriva is more on the lines of FC. The Mandriva product that is on the same line of CentOS is Mandriva Corporate, which is not free.
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 09:49:41PM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
Jeff said that they, at RedHat, didn't agree with package splitting. It makes maintenance harder, installing more confusing for the users and, to quote him "harddisk space is cheap".
So I have to say that this issue goes way back, and is not as recent as FC4. I don't remember the exact date of this discussion, but I think it was 2000 or 2001.
Yeah a quick check of the mirros shows Mandrake have been splitting it into language packages since it first appeared in the main repoisitory in 9.2 (Oct 2003).
Well .. OK, I won't get in to political distro discussions ... however; CentOS is cloning this condition very well ... and did I mention that CentOS is free :)
Well, I think the fact that I was part of this discussion back then, and I'm using CentOS now, shows where I stand.
Yes, I would love to see more package granularity on CentOS. But all things considered, I like CentOS better.
[]s
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@suespammers.org "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 01:34 -0200, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 09:11:44PM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
Yeah that looks like it. Why-oh-why couldn't RH do the smart thing and split it out into language packages like Mandriva? I'll have to remember to set my partition size when installing RH distros to 7 or 10GB, not 5.
Red Hat does so since Fedora Core 4.
Right ... remember that you are comparing CentOS-4 (based on FC3) with the latest release of Mandriva. They are doing it different now too.
It is more than that.
I remember talking to Jeff Johnson a few years ago. I was working at Conectiva, and contributing code to rpm. The subject of our discussion was package splitting.
Conectiva was known for splitting everything into multiple packages. glibc alone was separed in 40+ packages.
Jeff said that they, at RedHat, didn't agree with package splitting. It makes maintenance harder, installing more confusing for the users and, to quote him "harddisk space is cheap".
So I have to say that this issue goes way back, and is not as recent as FC4. I don't remember the exact date of this discussion, but I think it was 2000 or 2001.
---- Upstream took all of the languages out of main packaging in Fedora Core 4 and obviously intends to keep doing that. Too late for CentOS 4 but future releases will split Oo
Craig
-
Alexander Dalloz -
Craig White -
Johnny Hughes -
Maciej Żenczykowski -
Rodrigo Barbosa -
Tim Edwards