Florian Schmaus <f...@gentoo.org> writes: > [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]] > On 26/04/2023 18.12, Matt Turner wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 11:31 AM Florian Schmaus <f...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> The discussion would be more productive if someone who is supporting the >>> EGO_SUM deprecation could rationally summarize the main arguments why we >>> deprecated EGO_SUM. >> You're requesting the changes. It's on you to read the previous >> threads and try to understand. It's not others' responsibilities to >> justify the status quo to you, but tl;dr is Manifest files grew to >> insane sizes for golang packages with many dependencies, and the >> Manifest size is a cost all Gentoo users pay regardless of whether >> they use the package. > > I am sorry. I did try to understand the reasoning in the previous > threads. However, I do not conclude that the "cost" users must pay for > EGO_SUM justifies EGO_SUM's deprecation. It is the other way around: > EGO_SUM's advantages do not explain its deprecation, even if users > have to pay a cost. > > You write that the "Manifest sizes grew to insane sizes"? > > At which boundary does a package size, the total size of the package's > directory, become insane? > > Disk space is cheap. Currently, ::gentoo, without metadata, is around > 470 MiB. If you add 10 Go packages with a whopping 200 KiB each, then > this adds 2 MiB to that. I need someone to explain how this > constitutes an issue with disk space. Even if we add 100 Go packages, > probably roughly the number of Go packages we have in ::gentoo, then > those 20 MiB are not significant. Needless to say that the average > size of a Go package is less than the 200 KiB uses in this > calculation.
The numbers you've used here suggest you've missed some of the big problematic cases from the past: - https://bugs.gentoo.org/833478 (1.1MB manifest) - https://bugs.gentoo.org/833477 (1.6MB manifest) sam
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
