Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: EGO_SUM

[Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2609 bytes --]


Florian Schmaus <flow@gentoo.org> writes:

> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> On 27/04/2023 23.16, Sam James wrote:
>> Florian Schmaus <flow@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 <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 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.


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 377 bytes --]