On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 16:34 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 15:35 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 15:18 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > > On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 11:44 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > > > Taking a list of pkgs, resolving out all of their deps then calculating > > > > installed size (not calculating vs an existing install, but raw > > > > installed size) shouldn't take too much code at all. I'll see what I can > > > > hack up today. > > > > > > > > It won't take into account overlaid files (like docs and manpages, nor > > > > multilib binaries) but it should give you a pretty good upper range > > > > (sort of). > > > > > > A start of what it should do. I'll fix up the kickstart parsing, among > > > other things, later - once I get some confirmation is even remotely in > > > the ballpark. > > > > > > http://skvidal.fedorapeople.org/misc/installed-size.py > > > > The thing which becomes important to see is growth (or shrinkage) in > > packages as well as what new packages/removed packages there are. Which > > involves fiddly questions of growth thresholds and human analysis of the > > output > > I can output a csv of the pkgs that would be installed. > as we discussed in jabber - I've changed: http://skvidal.fedorapeople.org/misc/installed-size.py to output: size\tname.arch for all the pkgs in the requested trees. If the numbers look right-ish I'll work on getting it to take a ks.cfg as its input. -sv -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
