Re: F36 Change: Enable fs-verity in RPM (System-Wide Change proposal)

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

 




On Mon, Dec 13, 2021, at 5:21 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
> 
> Did you test the impact this has on package build times?  Particularly
> packages like llvm, clang, webkit2gtk3, etc. that have very large 
> debuginfo files?

I think far too often the culture here is "make $change for all RPMs".  But this "everything is an RPM" mindset can lead to outcomes and methodology that is at best weird.

For e.g. "let's try building with newer gcc", it would seem far better to me to e.g. start with the things that are in Fedora CoreOS or Workstation or whatever.  (And, optionally their build dependencies)

For *this* particular change, the value of pre-signing the -debug RPMs seems...weak.  Or even the `-devel` RPMs.  Now, obviously choosing *which* binaries to sign would require some thought.
But I think that's worth doing instead of blindly doing everything.
_______________________________________________
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