| 1 |
On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 02:58:04PM +0300, Joonas Niilola wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 16.7.2022 14.24, Florian Schmaus wrote: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > That reads as if you wrote it under the assumption that we can only |
| 5 |
> > either use dependency tarballs or use EGO_SUM. At the same time, I have |
| 6 |
> > not seen an argument why we can not simply do *both*. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > EGO_SUM has numerous advantages over dependency tarballs, but can not be |
| 9 |
> > used if the size of the EGO_SUM value crosses a threshold. So why not |
| 10 |
> > mandate dependency tarballs if a point is crossed and otherwise allow |
| 11 |
> > EGO_SUM? That way, we could have the best of both worlds. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > - Flow |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> ++ this sounds most sensible. This is also how I've understood your |
| 17 |
> proposal. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Remember that with EGO_SUM all of the bloated manifests and ebuilds are |
| 20 |
on every user's system. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I added mgorny as a cc to this message because he made it pretty clear |
| 23 |
at some point in the previous discussion that the size of these ebuilds |
| 24 |
and manifests is unacceptable. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
William |
Archives