Garrett: > But one should not, I think, ignore the overhead that adding new > runtimes (and even new compile-time languages) adds. Each language > needs (typically) either or both of a full time runtime environment and > a development tool chain.
I'm not suggesting that we ignore the overhead. However, in your previous post you lamented the fact that Perl 5.8.x was now at 38mb. With 500gb disks showing up as standard in most systems, 38mb doesn't really seems that large any more. > And, I'm not suggesting that we should prohibit perl development. It sounds like I've misunderstood. It really sounded to me like what was said was, "No Perl code should be checked into ON again, and we should have a PSARC case to enforce this." I guess this wasn't what was actually meant. > Rather I've suggested that PSARC (or whatever other powers-that-be is > appropriate) should aim that installation of perl on Solaris should be > "optional". In other words, I think that software that is part of the > "minimal install" should not depend on other large external runtimes > (I'll go ahead and extend this to Java and ksh93 as well, if you prefer) > such as Perl. (Compile time toolchain requirements should be considered > by the various REs involved ... I don't care much about Compile time > requirements so much as the runtime overhead.) Isn't a "large" runtime a moving target? If we set a maximum size for inclusion in the default install today, isn't that going to be obsolete before 2012? I'd be in favor of using common sense in these situations instead of rules. That said, if we actually do have a minimization project in the works, I agree that it would be better for everyone involved if the dependancies for the "minimal install" were codified in an ARC case. Another alternative is to consider stripped down versions of important runtimes, although I'm not sure if that's germane to the current discussion. > Looking at the competitive landscape, I've built Linux and NetBSD > distributions that were functional and occupied less than 4 MB total. > While these were primitive builds, for single-function devices, I think > it is useful to think about space and bloat. It'd be nice if developers > would occasionally make an effort to develop software that make > assumptions about Moore's Law. :-) For a single-function, single CPU device, you probably don't need intrd anyway. :P Assumptions about Moore's Law have also changed over time. This is certainly unrelated to the current discussion but interesting none the less: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_11/tuomi/index.html -j _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
