Subject: Re: GKrellM2 import
To: Lurch <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Quentin Garnier <email@example.com>
Date: 02/23/2004 08:37:59
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:01:32 -0600
Lurch <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 05:13:49PM +0100, Quentin Garnier wrote:
> > Le Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:30:16 +0100 (CET)
> > Hubert Feyrer a ecrit :
> > > On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Quentin Garnier wrote:
> > > > What do you think? Is it worth it to keep a GTK+-1.2/glib-1.2
> > > > version around?
> > >
> > > Is there a good reason?
> > I don't see any good reason, and nobody helped me finding one.
> > Since I now have a replacement in -wip for every gkrellm plugin we
> > currently package, I will import gkrellm2 and its plugins tomorrow
> > (late evening CET) as a replacement of the gkrellm1 pacakages.
> > Unless someone strongly objects, of course.
> Very little objection here, I'm wondering how large GKrellM2 is
> though... I'm using it on an _old_ laptop...
pkg_info -Ss gkrellm1 --> 37,983,547
pkg_info -Ss gkrellm2 --> 60,180,905
This is a ~60% increase, mostly because gtk2+ is 340% larger than gtk+
(yes, that much). This is a large increase, but if someone already has
37 MB to spend on such a thing as GKrellM (20MB of them are from perl),
I guess 60 MB is not a problem.
About memory footprint, I don't think it has changed a lot. The gkrellm
process on my station is about 9 MB (RES) after start-up.