I usually don't say anything and just read...it's not really my place. I just like to keep up with things going on. But, by the time you finish worrying about all the overhead and things get finalized, there's going to be so damn much RAM and processing power no one will care. Kind of like developing one white blood cell to defend your entire body.
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Colin Walters <walt...@verbum.org> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 01:19 PM, Neil Horman wrote: > > > > In either case, you're going to wind up butchering a fair amount of what > the rpm > > is going to be doing anyway. If its so important to minimize that > storage, rpm > > dependencies shouldn't really be a big deal, because you know you're > going to > > have to either do some FS surgery anyway. > > What I'm actually arguing long term is to rearchitect the model of the > subset > of Fedora that is for server containers to support this - something like a > "just the binaries" > data blob, and then *optionally* turn that intermediate into an RPM that > would > have a systemd unit file. It could really be an RPM, just without the > %post > scripts relating to systemd and the unit files. > > In practice though, it's not a big deal as long as shared libraries don't > end up pulling in systemd or other components. And for software that's > container-only, the build process (Dockerfile or something better in the > future) for containers just won't require it. > > > Yes, its more than one process. I think thats the better tradeoff > though. > > What you're arguing is that *build* convenience for our current > architecture > outweighs the *runtime* cost. That doesn't make sense long term - they're > different problems. > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
