Florian Schmaus <f...@gentoo.org> writes: > [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]] > On 27/04/2023 23.16, Sam James wrote: >> 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) > > Thanks for pointing those bugs out. > > But please allow me to clarify that I did not miss those "problematic" > cases from the past.
This kind of phrasing is the sort of thing which makes it seem like you don't appreciate/acknowledge others' concerns. I said problematic because it was clearly beyond what your worst-case estimates were, i.e. far more than what you were saying would be a large amount for the purposes of calculations.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
