Hi Chris,
On 2015-09-22 04:26, Chris Murphy wrote:
...
For the cloud image, extlinux actually works. The problem pops up with
any image intended for baremetal whre UEFI Secure Boot support is
needed, and right now GRUB2 does and extlinux doesn't, so any "atomic"
image would need GRUB2.
Wh
* Matthew Miller:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:10:40AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> Also, you might consider to ship the precompiled bytecode just
>> optionally, using recommends.
>>
>> On contrary, if you insist on shipping the bytecode, why you don't drop
>> the .py files? I see a lot of duplic
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 25.9.2015 v 16:15 Mathieu Bridon napsal(a):
> > (it is invaluable for learning and
> > debugging purposes to be able to read/edit the code).
>
> Come on, this is not an argument. We don't install source code for any
> other language which
Dne 25.9.2015 v 16:15 Mathieu Bridon napsal(a):
> On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 10:04 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:10:40AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>> Also, you might consider to ship the precompiled bytecode just
>>> optionally, using recommends.
>>>
>>> On contrary, if you
Dne 25.9.2015 v 16:04 Matthew Miller napsal(a):
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:10:40AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> Also, you might consider to ship the precompiled bytecode just
>> optionally, using recommends.
Just to be clear, not/optional shipping the bytecode is the preferred
method IMO
>
On 09/25/2015 10:01 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:
> On 9/25/15, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 11:30:38AM -0400, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
>>> Maybe we could utilize weak dependencies here. The python-foo package
>>> would have only bytecompiled files and would Recommend
>>> python-fo
On 9/25/15, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 11:30:38AM -0400, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
>> Maybe we could utilize weak dependencies here. The python-foo package
>> would have only bytecompiled files and would Recommend
>> python-foo-sourcefiles. That way python-foo-sourcefiles would b
On 09/25/2015 10:04 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:10:40AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Also, you might consider to ship the precompiled bytecode just
optionally, using recommends.
On contrary, if you insist on shipping the bytecode, why you don't drop
the .py files? I see a
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 11:30:38AM -0400, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> Maybe we could utilize weak dependencies here. The python-foo package
> would have only bytecompiled files and would Recommend
> python-foo-sourcefiles. That way python-foo-sourcefiles would be
> installed in standard setting, but i
- Original Message -
> On 09/25/2015 08:36 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 10:09:50AM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> >> It's nice to be able to edit the .py for testing without going through
> >> hoops or building/installing rpms.
> >
> > Right, but you know that if you'
On 09/25/2015 08:36 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 10:09:50AM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
It's nice to be able to edit the .py for testing without going through
hoops or building/installing rpms.
Right, but you know that if you're doing that in /usr/lib, that's
*gross*, right
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 10:09:50AM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> It's nice to be able to edit the .py for testing without going through
> hoops or building/installing rpms.
Right, but you know that if you're doing that in /usr/lib, that's
*gross*, right? :)
--
Matthew Miller
Fedora Project L
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 16:17 +0200, Fabian Deutsch wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Matthew Miller
>> wrote:
>> > > On contrary, if you insist on shipping the bytecode, why you
>> > > don't drop
>> > > the .py files? I see a lot
On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 16:17 +0200, Fabian Deutsch wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Matthew Miller
> wrote:
> > > On contrary, if you insist on shipping the bytecode, why you
> > > don't drop
> > > the .py files? I see a lot of duplication all around python
> > > packages
>
> Don't d
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
>> On contrary, if you insist on shipping the bytecode, why you don't drop
>> the .py files? I see a lot of duplication all around python packages
Don't do that, it has impact on functionality.
We did this for years [0], but you wonder h
On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 10:04 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:10:40AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > Also, you might consider to ship the precompiled bytecode just
> > optionally, using recommends.
> >
> > On contrary, if you insist on shipping the bytecode, why you don't
>
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:10:40AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Also, you might consider to ship the precompiled bytecode just
optionally, using recommends.
On contrary, if you insist on shipping the bytecode, why you don't drop
the .py files? I see a lo
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:10:40AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Also, you might consider to ship the precompiled bytecode just
> optionally, using recommends.
>
> On contrary, if you insist on shipping the bytecode, why you don't drop
> the .py files? I see a lot of duplication all around python pa
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:59:09AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>> > cares?" adds up. If it *got* us anything in terms of functionality,
>> > okay, I can sell that to people, but for the base, this is just bloat.
>> Bummer. The
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:59:09AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > cares?" adds up. If it *got* us anything in terms of functionality,
> > okay, I can sell that to people, but for the base, this is just bloat.
> Bummer. The reason for libxkbcommon dependency is to be able to make
> su
Am 21.09.2015 um 11:07 schrieb Matthew Miller:
> Fedora-Cloud-Base-20141203-21.x86_64.qcow2: 151M
> Fedora-Cloud-Base-23_Beta-20150915.x86_64.qcow2: 275M
>
> In just one year — 82% more awesome?
>
> I'd really like this to stay below 200MB as a competitive threshold.
> Or, if we're goin
On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 11:00 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 00:59 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>
> > Bummer. The reason for libxkbcommon dependency is to be able to
> > make
> > sure that the new config is valid. Before that was added we had a
> > set
> > of rules a
On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 00:59 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> Bummer. The reason for libxkbcommon dependency is to be able to make
> sure that the new config is valid. Before that was added we had a set
> of rules and heuristics implemented in localed and regular bug reports
> when typos
Dne 22.9.2015 v 11:07 Matej Stuchlik napsal(a):
>
> When it comes to python3, one way to shave off ~9MiB from python3-libs, and
> possibly quite a bit more overall, would be to not install both optimized and
> unoptimized bytecode, as we do now, but just the unoptimized one (the
> performance
> hi
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 03:28:57PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 07:07:09PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > Not really. localed is simply linked to libxkbcommon.so, so it will
> > not run without. Anyway, libxkbcommon.rpm is 260kb, so some potential
> > (compl
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 07:07:09PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> Not really. localed is simply linked to libxkbcommon.so, so it will
> not run without. Anyway, libxkbcommon.rpm is 260kb, so some potential
> (complicated) scheme to avoid a dependency simply does not seem worth
> the tr
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 02:46:52PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 06:35:04PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > > >5423400 xkeyboard-config # really looks like a systemd dep chain
> > > > >involving plymouth
> > > > plymouth luckily is no hard dependency fo
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 06:35:04PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > >5423400 xkeyboard-config # really looks like a systemd dep chain
> > > >involving plymouth
> > > plymouth luckily is no hard dependency for anything
> > "Involving plymouth" might have been wrong. libxkbcommon.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:35:54AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 05:11:24PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > >5423400 xkeyboard-config # really looks like a systemd dep chain
> > >involving plymouth
> > plymouth luckily is no hard dependency for anything
>
> "Involving
- Original Message -
> From: "Matthew Miller"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 3:49:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Fedora 23 cloud image (and, for that matter, minimal anything)
> bloat
>
&
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Matej Stuchlik wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Ville Skyttä"
>>
>> Managed to fiddle around some more and looks like the above is a false
>> concern, many *.pyc, *.opt-1.pyc and *.opt-2.pyc are identical.
>> So, https://github.com/rpm-software-mana
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 05:07:58AM -0400, Matej Stuchlik wrote:
> When it comes to python3, one way to shave off ~9MiB from
> python3-libs, and possibly quite a bit more overall, would be to not
> install both optimized and unoptimized bytecode, as we do now, but
> just the unoptimized one (the per
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 07:26:52PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> For the cloud image, extlinux actually works. The problem pops up with
> any image intended for baremetal whre UEFI Secure Boot support is
> needed, and right now GRUB2 does and extlinux doesn't, so any "atomic"
> image would need GRUB
- Original Message -
> From: "Ville Skyttä"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 3:03:24 PM
> Subject: Re: Fedora 23 cloud image (and, for that matter, minimal
> anything) bloat
>
> O
- Original Message -
> From: "Ville Skyttä"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 2:43:33 PM
> Subject: Re: Fedora 23 cloud image (and, for that matter, minimal
> anything) bloat
>
> On
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
>
> BTW I just had a peek into some Arch Linux Python 3.5 packages, and it
> seems they contain *no* identical *.pyc and corresponding *.opt-1.pyc
> files. This is bad news wrt the hardlinking. I haven't found any
> *.opt-2.pyc files to play wit
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Matej Stuchlik wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Ville Skyttä"
>>
>> Also, be careful with measuring space savings when working with *.pyo.
>> It is a common case that *.pyc and *.pyo are identical, and when they
>> are rpmbuild already hardlinks the
- Original Message -
> From: "Ville Skyttä"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 1:36:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Fedora 23 cloud image (and, for that matter, minimal
> anything) bloat
>
>
On Tuesday, 22 September 2015 at 03:26, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Matthew Miller
> wrote:
[...]
> > But *that* said, the current packaging means that grub2 adds 70MB on
> > disk — about 12% of the entire cloud image. I'm not saying grub2 is
> > evil, just that this is
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 5:36 AM, Matej Stuchlik wrote:
>>
>> Also note that it's possibly not just 9MB. For instance python3-boto, also
>> on this list, would
>> save 4.7MB, python3-pip 2.9MB. In general most python packages could go
>> down in
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 5:36 AM, Matej Stuchlik wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > From: "drago01"
> > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" <
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 11:20:27 A
- Original Message -
> From: "drago01"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 11:20:27 AM
> Subject: Re: Fedora 23 cloud image (and, for that matter, minimal
> anything) bloat
>
> On T
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Matej Stuchlik wrote:
> [...]
> When it comes to python3, one way to shave off ~9MiB from python3-libs, and
> possibly quite a bit more overall, would be to not install both optimized and
> unoptimized bytecode, as we do now, but just the unoptimized one (the
> p
- Original Message -
> From: "Matthew Miller"
> To: "Fedora Development List"
> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 5:07:40 PM
> Subject: Fedora 23 cloud image (and, for that matter, minimal anything) bloat
>
> Fedora-Cloud-Base-20141203-21.x86_64
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 03:39:46PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> It's worth pointing out that your griping about grub2 "growth" seems
>> misleading. The sizes of the grub2 packages did not change between
>> F22 and F23. What seems to have ha
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 03:39:46PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> It's worth pointing out that your griping about grub2 "growth" seems
> misleading. The sizes of the grub2 packages did not change between
> F22 and F23. What seems to have happened is that the cloud images
> added the grub2 packages, w
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> Fedora-Cloud-Base-20141203-21.x86_64.qcow2: 151M
> Fedora-Cloud-Base-23_Beta-20150915.x86_64.qcow2: 275M
>
> In just one year — 82% more awesome?
>
> I'd really like this to stay below 200MB as a competitive threshold.
> Or, if we're
On 21/09/15 16:07, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Fedora-Cloud-Base-20141203-21.x86_64.qcow2: 151M
> Fedora-Cloud-Base-23_Beta-20150915.x86_64.qcow2: 275M
>
> In just one year — 82% more awesome?
>
> I'd really like this to stay below 200MB as a competitive threshold.
> Or, if we're going to b
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:07:40AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Okay, let's look on disk:
>
>
> [f21]$ sudo du -sh * 2>/dev/null|sort -h
> [...]
> 36K home
> 40K root
> 228Krun
> 21M boot
> 22M etc
> 34M var
> 276Musr
I find that KDE filelight (also GNOME baob
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 05:11:24PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >5423400 xkeyboard-config # really looks like a systemd dep chain
> >involving plymouth
> plymouth luckily is no hard dependency for anything
"Involving plymouth" might have been wrong. libxkbcommon.so.0 looks
like a direct depe
Am 21.09.2015 um 17:07 schrieb Matthew Miller:
5423400 xkeyboard-config # really looks like a systemd dep chain
involving plymouth
plymouth luckily is no hard dependency for anything
[root@rawhide ~]# rpm -qa | grep keyboard
xkeyboard-config-2.15-2.fc23.noarch
[root@rawhide ~]# rpm -qa
Fedora-Cloud-Base-20141203-21.x86_64.qcow2: 151M
Fedora-Cloud-Base-23_Beta-20150915.x86_64.qcow2: 275M
In just one year — 82% more awesome?
I'd really like this to stay below 200MB as a competitive threshold.
Or, if we're going to be bigger than that, be bigger for REASONS, not
just acc
52 matches
Mail list logo
