On Mon, 2021-04-19 at 16:51 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 05:42:01PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > Basically, if we can't avoid the overhead of duplication altogether, > > I'd rather pay it on the filesystem than in the RPM database, where > > it's felt over and over again when dowloading repodata and when > > performing package management. > > I think this worrying about micro-optimizing a problem that doesn't > really have any real world impact. 8k is lost in the noise of an > RPM transaction. I will use the same argument with s/an RPM transaction/a Linux install/ ;) dnf is slow enough as it is, and anything we can do to help it out is a good change in my book. The impact of a single package might not be measurable, but hopefully other packagers are also paying some attention to the topic and avoiding creating unnecessary binary packages. Anyway, I'll try to cook up a patch for this that is completely stand-alone with respect to the other changes, so once it's on the list we can discuss whether to merge it or throw it away :) -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization
