From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
Cc: Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org>,
council@gentoo.org, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: EGO_SUM
Date: Mon, 08 May 2023 14:03:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <65bac7eb93f9b9ecd95f1fb38892e914edb879f5.camel@gentoo.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7d9a29eb-c802-1a87-f02b-f0a59ccd75c3@gentoo.org>
On Mon, 2023-05-08 at 09:53 +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> On 02.05.23 21:45, Sam James wrote:
> > Florian Schmaus <flow@gentoo.org> writes:
> > > On 27/04/2023 23.16, Sam James wrote:
> > > > Florian Schmaus <flow@gentoo.org> writes:
> > > > > On 26/04/2023 18.12, Matt Turner wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 11:31 AM Florian Schmaus <flow@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 am genuinely sorry if my usage of "problematic" made it appear that I
> do not appreciate the other's concerns. Like most people on this mailing
> list, I appreciate everyone who cares about Gentoo and raises concerns.
>
> I do, however, not share the concerns regarding EGO_SUM.
>
> It is hard to share concerns based on rather abstract reasons—for
> example, the portrayal of EGO_SUM as unfair.
>
> It would be easier to share concerns if somebody gave concrete reasons
> against EGO_SUM. For example, use cases that are no longer possible. Or
> developers or users who are restricted in their work by EGO_SUM in a
> relevant way.
>
> But actual problems that currently speak against the use of EGO_SUM have
> not surfaced.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Using the term "worst-case", even if I put it in quotes, probably got
> people on the wrong track. I am sorry for that; my bad. It is, in
> general, impossible even to approximate the worst-case size-increase of
> ::gentoo.
>
> Our best chance is to use historical data to interpolate the future.
>
> My back-of-the-envolope calculation was 256 Go-packages, with each
> having 1 MiB. An analysis of the three on 2022-02-16, at the commit
> right before Minikube and k3s were cleaned, showed that only five
> packages out of 120 had larger package-directory sizes than one MiB.
>
> 256 Go-packages is roughly the number of Go-packages we have right now.
> Assuming they all have a package-directory size of 1.6 MiB, the most
> extensive EGO_SUM package the analysis yielded so far, we end up with
> 410 MiB.
>
> The point you criticize was that a system able to handle the current
> size of ::gentoo would also be able to manage an additional 256 MiB. The
> point still stands if we exchange the 256 MiB with 410 MiB.
>
> Furthermore, both numbers, 256 MiB and 410 MiB, are based on the
> over-approximation that every EGO_SUM package uses 1.6 MiB, which is
> almost certainly not the case. The mean package-directory size of a
> EGO_SUM using package at 2022-02-16 was 280 KiB.
>
Please extend this analysis to Manifest changes over time, and how they
are going to impact total gentoo.git size.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-08 12:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-17 7:37 [gentoo-dev] EGO_SUM Florian Schmaus
2023-04-17 9:28 ` [gentoo-dev] EGO_SUM Anna (cybertailor) Vyalkova
2023-04-27 18:00 ` William Hubbs
2023-04-27 18:18 ` David Seifert
2023-04-24 16:11 ` Florian Schmaus
2023-04-24 20:28 ` Sam James
2023-04-24 22:52 ` Alexey Zapparov
2023-04-26 15:31 ` Florian Schmaus
2023-04-26 16:12 ` Matt Turner
2023-04-26 19:31 ` Andrew Ammerlaan
2023-04-26 19:38 ` Chris Pritchard
2023-04-26 20:47 ` Matt Turner
2023-04-27 7:58 ` Florian Schmaus
2023-04-27 9:24 ` Ulrich Mueller
2023-04-28 6:59 ` Florian Schmaus
2023-04-27 12:54 ` Michał Górny
2023-04-27 23:12 ` Pascal Jäger
2023-04-28 0:38 ` Sam James
2023-04-28 4:27 ` Michał Górny
2023-04-28 5:31 ` Sam James
2023-04-28 6:59 ` Florian Schmaus
2023-04-28 14:34 ` Michał Górny
2023-05-02 19:32 ` Florian Schmaus
2023-05-02 19:38 ` Sam James
2023-04-29 22:34 ` Robin H. Johnson
2023-04-27 21:16 ` Sam James
2023-05-02 19:32 ` Florian Schmaus
2023-05-02 19:45 ` Sam James
2023-05-08 7:53 ` Florian Schmaus
2023-05-08 12:03 ` Michał Górny [this message]
2023-05-22 7:14 ` Florian Schmaus
2023-05-02 20:04 ` Matt Turner
2023-05-08 7:53 ` Florian Schmaus
2023-04-26 20:51 ` Sam James
2023-05-30 15:52 ` Florian Schmaus
2023-05-30 16:30 ` Anna (cybertailor) Vyalkova
2023-05-31 5:02 ` Oskari Pirhonen
2023-05-30 16:35 ` Arthur Zamarin
2023-05-31 6:20 ` Andrew Ammerlaan
2023-05-31 8:40 ` Ryan Qian
2023-05-31 9:06 ` Arsen Arsenović
2023-05-31 6:30 ` pascal.jaeger leimstift.de
2023-06-01 4:00 ` William Hubbs
2023-06-02 8:17 ` Florian Schmaus
2023-06-02 8:31 ` Michał Górny
2023-06-09 10:07 ` Florian Schmaus
2023-06-01 19:55 ` [gentoo-dev] EGO_SUM William Hubbs
2023-06-02 7:13 ` Joonas Niilola
2023-06-02 18:06 ` William Hubbs
2023-06-02 18:42 ` Joonas Niilola
2023-06-09 10:07 ` Florian Schmaus
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=65bac7eb93f9b9ecd95f1fb38892e914edb879f5.camel@gentoo.org \
--to=mgorny@gentoo.org \
--cc=council@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
--cc=mattst88@gentoo.org \
--cc=sam@gentoo.org \
--cc=williamh@gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox