Re: HOW BIG IS IT?

[Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 01:34:55PM -0500, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
>
>At 12:54 PM 2/20/2001, Mark Paulus wrote:
>>Just realize, the size of the package isn't the whole picture.
>>You also need the space for the download, the space for the unpacking,
>>the space for the /usr components (man, bin, lib, etc), and the space 
>>for the "latest" snapshot.  I downloaded what I considered
>>a base system (didn't include gcc,m4, or any dev stuff except 
>>make) to a samba disk I have at home.  That took 300 MB or so.
>>But I tried installing the components I wanted onto a local disk,
>>and that totally consumed a 900MB disk with it's temp files, and
>>everything else.  Couldn't even get it installed, until I went to 
>>a partition with 2+ GB free.  
>
>
>You don't have to download the snapshots.  And you only need to take 
>"contrib" if there's something you want in there.  Still, I downloaded 
>"latest" and its 330MB for me ("contrib" is 43 MB).
>
>"Is there something wrong with free software that makes it so big?", he asks
>jokingly.
>
>
>>(Would be nice if setup would allow one to specify whether to keep
>>packages as they are exploded, where to keep temp files, etc, etc)
>
>
>I doubt you'll get an argument from folks on this list in that regard.
>Anyone want to patch setup to do this?

The packages are "exploded" into /bin, /usr/bin, etc., AFAIK.  There is
no need to specify a separate directory for this.  If there are temp
files they are probably pretty small.

However, anyone who is really curious about this can check the source.
I'm not curious at all, so I haven't done so.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple