r5412 - in trunk/BOOK: . xsoft/office
b3nt at ukonline.co.uk
Tue Dec 13 13:54:55 PST 2005
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Andrew Benton wrote these words on 12/13/05 15:27 CST:
>> The difference is 24300, which I divided by 1024 to get the size in Mb
> But Andy you're not thinking logically. Think about it. Just
> unpacking the tarball yields more than 120 MB of space used. How on
> earth could it be anything less than that.
> Your procedures are way flawed.
> You do know to measure the total before you delete the source tree,
No, I didn't. The Editors guide isn't very clear on the point. It says "Build sizes should be measured with a df -k / command before the package is unpacked and after the package is installed." so I assumed it meant the disk space the application would take up after it was installed. It'd be simple to rearrange the build script and do df -k / before rm -rf abiword-2.4.1
> The goal here is to let users know about how much disk space they
> need to build the packages. This means that at the point right after
> the 'make install', they would need enough space for:
> 1. The installed files
> 2. The fully configured and built source tree without anything
> removed from it.
> 3. The space any temp files would be using.
> This is how much disk space it takes to build and install the
> package. And this is what we are trying to pass along to the users.
> OpenOffice says it takes 5.7 GIGABYTES of space. But I'd bet there
> are only a few hundred megabytes of installed files in /opt
Sorry, my mistake. I'll do another build and fix the page in a few minutes.
More information about the blfs-book