Am 03.06.2014 um 01:28 schrieb Aristotle Pagaltzis <pagalt...@gmx.de>:
> * Karen Etheridge <p...@froods.org> [2014-06-02 01:30]: >> I do not see any gain in specifying "give me XS or give me death". > > This I find easy to see, at least if we are talking of the general case: > > If I have my system set up to support XS then I want it to use XS, and > if for some reason it can’t, then there is a bug somewhere that needs to > be fixed, so I do *not* want it to silently give me the PP version and > carry on, but to fall down and die screaming so I’ll find out. Precisely. > However, I am unsure of the context of the discussion. I simply detected that we (p5) don't cover that situation, we always fallback to PP. > The above reasoning is applicable and important mostly when it comes to > production deployments: I never want my servers trying to limp on with > a CPU- and/or memory-hungry setup that will only reveal itself as such > in monitoring data. Production deployment is somehow similar to packaging - packaging is one step in deployment (even tar xjf ... is packaging or rsync a prepared directory). And then it comes - do the farm has the same arch and is XS possible and wanted, does your package process gives you the ability to distinguish between archs or is your process one blob to rule them all - than is FatPacking your hammer and XS is unwanted. But: Do the folks at CERN really FatPacking? AFAIK (I talk here and there in train to guys having experiments there) no. > But maybe the discussion is about some other scenario in which the given > reasoning is inapplicable? Since I don’t know, the above use case may be > neither here nor there. Depending on one's background, usecases sounds ridiculous. As pkgsrc maintainer (16+ platforms 30+ architectures supported) I do not understand the existence of fat packer at all. pbulk+pkgin is easier to deal with ... But I accept the usecase - even when I don't understand it. Cheers -- Jens Rehsack rehs...@gmail.com
