On Thu, Dec 17, 2015, at 01:19 PM, Neil Horman wrote: > > In either case, you're going to wind up butchering a fair amount of what the rpm > is going to be doing anyway. If its so important to minimize that storage, rpm > dependencies shouldn't really be a big deal, because you know you're going to > have to either do some FS surgery anyway. What I'm actually arguing long term is to rearchitect the model of the subset of Fedora that is for server containers to support this - something like a "just the binaries" data blob, and then *optionally* turn that intermediate into an RPM that would have a systemd unit file. It could really be an RPM, just without the %post scripts relating to systemd and the unit files. In practice though, it's not a big deal as long as shared libraries don't end up pulling in systemd or other components. And for software that's container-only, the build process (Dockerfile or something better in the future) for containers just won't require it. > Yes, its more than one process. I think thats the better tradeoff though. What you're arguing is that *build* convenience for our current architecture outweighs the *runtime* cost. That doesn't make sense long term - they're different problems. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
