Re: F36 Change: Package information on ELF objects (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 9:41 AM Petr Pisar <ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> V Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 01:45:00AM +0100, Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
> > Dne 25. 10. 21 v 21:09 Ben Cotton napsal(a):
> > > === Why not just use the rpm database? ===
> > >
> > > <pre>
> > > 17:34:33 <dcantrell> The main reason for this appears to be that we
> > > need the RPM db locally to resolve build-ids to package names. But
> > > since containers wipe /var/lib/rpm, we can't do that. So the solution
> > > is to put the ''nevra'' in ELF metadata?
> > > 17:34:39 <dcantrell> That feels like the wrong approach.
> > > </pre>
> > >
> > > First, there are legitimate reasons to strip packaging metadata from
> > > images. For example, for an initrd image from rpms, I get 117 MB of
> > > files (without compression), and out of this `/var/lib/rpm` is 5.9 MB,
> > > and `/var/lib/dnf` is 4.2 MB. This is an overhead of 9%. This is ''not
> > > much'', but still too much to keep in the image unless necessary.
> > > Similar ratios will happen for containers of similar size. Reducing
> > > image size by one tenth is important. There is no `rpm` or `dnf` in
> > > the image, to the package database is not even usable without external
> > > tools.
> >
> > Devil advocate here:
> >
> > **Some** people wipe `/var/lib/rpm` to save 5.9 MB. And because of this we
> > will put another 5.9 MB [citation needed] as metadata split across various
> > ELF objects for **everybody**.
> >
> > When someone want really tiny image, I will expect they will start stipping
> > ELF objects when they discover this feature.
> >
> Morover it only pertains ELF. What about other files? E.g. compiled Java
> classes, or minified JavaScript libriaries?

I will be proposing a separate system-wide F36 change for embedding
package NVR inside Java JAR files iff the ELF change is accepted.

--
Mikolaj Izdebski

>
> What about storing the RPM package identifier by a package manager when
> installing a file into an extedned attribute of the file? That
> would track origin of all files and users not intersted in the tracking
> could easily remove the data. Effectively it would become a feature of the
> package manager. Not of a build system.
>
> -- Petr
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux