Messages in this thread | | | From | Krzysztof Halasa <> | Subject | Re: FatELF patches... | Date | Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:33:20 +0100 |
| |
david@lang.hm writes:
>> In terms on disk space on distro TFTP servers only. You'll need to >> transfer more, both from user's and distro's POV (obviously). This one >> simple fact alone is more than enough to forget the FatELF. > > it depends on if there is only one arch being downloaded ot not.
Well, from user's POV it may get close if the user downloads maybe 5 different archs out of all supported by the distro. Not very typical I guess.
> it could be considerably cheaper for mirroring bandwidth.
Maybe (though it can be solved with the existing techniques). What does now count - bandwidth consumed by users or by mirrors?
> Even if Alan > is correct and distros have re-packaged everything so that the arch > independant stuff is really in seperate packages, most > mirroring/repository systems keep each distro release/arch in a > seperate directory tree, so each of these arch-independant things gets > copied multiple times.
If it was a (serious) problem (I think it's not), it could be easily solved. Think rsync, sha1|256-based mirroring stuff etc.
> you don't have to compile multiple arches anymore than you have to > provide any other support for that arch. FatELF is a way to bundle the > binaries that you were already creating, not something to force you to > support an arch you otherwise wouldn't (although if it did make it > easy enough for you to do so that you started to support additional > arches, that would be a good thing)
Not sure - longer compile times, longer downloads, no testing.
> if you have a 1M binary with 500M data, repeated for 5 arches it is > not a win vs a single 505M FatELF package in all cases.
A real example of such binary maybe? -- Krzysztof Halasa
| |