From: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 11:27:27 GMT
Subject: Re: Distribution size
Message-ID: <m37hvmaqud.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <1253962653-sup-1882@nixos>

Marc Weber <marco-oweber@gmx.de> writes:

> Has anyone thought about reducing distribution size ?
> 
> comparison:
> 
> git-1.6.4.4 i%du -hs .
> 115M    .

Errr... what?

  $ du -hs /usr/libexec/git-core/
  8.0M

  $ du -shc `rpm -ql git`
  ...
  27M
 
But

  $ du -sh git/.git
  49M

(there is some of my commits there, some old branches pinned, and some
commits with other git(web) forks).

And

  $ git archive HEAD --output=tmp.tar
  $ du -sh tmp.tar 
  11M     tmp.tar

> mercurial-1.0.2 i%du -hs .
> 5.4M    .
> 
> bazaar-1.10rc1 i%du -hs
> 21M     .
> 
> darcs-2.2.1 i%du -hs    /nix/store/8xwfavyv22pvm3s60wvzcbq561fjk5di-darcs-2.2.1 nixos   
> 32M	.
> 
> There was an attempt to reduce size by using a shared library in 2007:
> http://markmail.org/message/vzukaie4qvbghkq5
> 
> So is there a reason why git takes up so much more disk space other than
> that its using many small executables?

Are you sure you are comparing the same thing in all cases?
And not in some cases after "make", with all object files?

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland
ShadeHawk on #git