| 1 |
On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 11:06:36AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 09:36:32AM +0300, Eray Aslan wrote: |
| 3 |
> >> 1/ Static allocation does not really solve a problem. Not really not |
| 4 |
> >> nowadays |
| 5 |
> >> 2/ We cant keep adding new IDs to a distribution as new software gets |
| 6 |
> >> added - one side is unbounded. This is losing game. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Not sure. In practice, the number of packages is limited. (And if the |
| 9 |
> argument was valid, it would apply to dynamic alloction too.) |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
In the static allocation option, the rate of increase is the rate of new |
| 12 |
ID-needing software ported to the tree minus - optimistically - the rate |
| 13 |
of treecleaning similar software. Optimistic because I am not sure how |
| 14 |
much, or at what point, do we want to re-use treecleaned IDs. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
In the dynamic case, we dont care about the global status and are really |
| 17 |
bound by the max number of sysem IDs installed in a single system. |
| 18 |
Local maximum is rather stable and in any case is a lot smaller than |
| 19 |
global maximum. Plus in this age of containers and namespaces, this |
| 20 |
isnt really a problem even if it did grow over time, i.e. even if |
| 21 |
unbounded, we have tools to manage it. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Eray |
Archives