(adding the list back on CC, since it seems this went private
just by mistake)
You know, my initial email listed 4 packages and removal of them might result in saving of tens of MBs. They are small on itself but they pull in much bigger dependency chains. And that typically happens just by evolution.
Maybe exiv2 really isn't the biggest package ATM, but who knows what dependency it will grow in a year. Or maybe it won't. I don't know.
I cannot ignore this on principle.
Vít
I'm surprised you'd consider this for such a small space savings (< 200k). I figured it a better use of everyone's time to focus on bigger things.Technically, the translations are packaged in the wrong place. I hadn't considered that to be much of a problem since the soft dependency defaulted to getting them installed.
If you're planning on breaking that presumption, so that translations wouldn't get installed, then I'll probably have to do something about it.
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 12:00 PM Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes, we would have the same conversation.
And generally, what you said about the translations does not make sense to me. Are they in the right package or not?
IOW the only way we would not have this conversation is if there was not the split between the -libs and executable. It does not seems to me that you are favor in this split yet we have it but don't benefit from it.
Vít
Dne 13. 07. 23 v 17:51 Rex Dieter napsal(a):
Seems like you may have not considered the translations angle, so let me spin it another way...
If I adjusted where translations are packaged (put with -libs), so that the base 'exiv2' package was < 1mb (~200k uncompressed), would we still be having this conversation?
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 10:10 AM Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
1) I am sure I never had any need to use the exiv2 executable and I would be surprised if majority of Fedora users had different experience
2) I don't understand what else then space saving and e.g. optimization of install media should be the reason for the split.
But given that the split as well as the recommends are correct, then I'll probably ask to remove the `exiv2` from the install media via kickstart or whatever is the right way to customize the install media content.
Vít
Dne 13. 07. 23 v 15:45 Rex Dieter napsal(a):
I don't see any good reason to change here. Mostly because the status quo is already a compromise to leave the base package as an optional Recommends (ie, removable).
This is considering that most of the space in question here are translations, that strictly-speaking, probably ought to be included in the -libs package anyway. if those files were moved, the space saving for the base package would be negligible.
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 7:42 AM Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(now hopefully with correct maintainer email)
Dne 13. 07. 23 v 14:38 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
>
> Dne 10. 07. 23 v 10:38 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
>>
>> exiv2
>>
>>
>
> So this is pulled in by exiv2-libs:
>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/exiv2/blob/rawhide/f/exiv2.spec#_53-58
>
> I am not sure I agree with the comment `# not strictly required, but
> convenient and expected`. But I think dependencies like this should be
> reevaluated at least in the install media context. This would save 4+
> MB of space.
>
> Or is the exiv2 maintainer (in CC) going to revisit this dependency?
>
>
> Vít
>
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
