[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: FatELF patches...
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009, Alan Cox wrote:

>> I'm certain if we made a Venn diagram, there would be an overlap. But
>> FatELF solves different problems than package managers, and in the case of
>> ia32 compatibility packages, it helps the package manager solve its
>> problems better.
> Not really - as I said it drives disk usage up, it drives network
> bandwidth up (which is a big issue for a distro vendor) and the package
> manager and file system exist to avoid this kind of mess being needed.

I think this depends on the particular package.

how much of the package is binary executables (which get multiplied) vs
how much is data or scripts (which do not)

fo any individual user it will alsays be a larger download, but if you
have to support more than one architecture (even 32 bit vs 64 bit x86)
it may be smaller to have one fat package than to have two 'normal'

yes, the package manager could handle this by splitting the package up
into more pieces, with some of the pieces being arch independant, but that
also adds complexity.

David Lang

> You can ask the same question as FatELF the other way around and it
> becomes even more obvious that it's a bad idea.
> Imagine you did it by name not by architecture. So you had a single
> "FatDirectory" file for /bin, /sbin and /usr/bin. It means you don't have
> to worry about people having different sets of binaries, it means they
> are always compatible. And like FatELF it's not a very good idea.
> Welcome to the invention of the directory.
> Alan
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to
> More majordomo info at
> Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-02 18:43    [W:0.139 / U:9.692 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site