> Luca Boccassi wrote: > > The problem with your argument is that one "ridiculously negligible" > overhead and then another and then yet another etc. ends up accumulating and > we end up with minimum RAM and disk space requirements increased by a factor > of 10 (!) since the day Fedora was founded. > > And yes, I also complain about the other sources of bloat. They all add up, > and they are all a problem. (For the build flags, I have been arguing for > ages that we should build with -Os rather than -O2.) > > Kevin Kofler
If I am reading this correctly, when Fedora was first released in 2003, common hard drive capacity was around 80 GB: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Hard_drive_capacity_over_time.png Today, 1 TB+ hard drives are common. Hence, even taking your x10 figure at face value, the growth of Fedora's requirements for disk space has not matched the growth of disk space availability, but it has stayed below, hence it's a win-win - you get the benefit and the cost is more than absorbed by hardware improvements. Furthermore, given an installation with the entire RPM universe installed (iirc) taking ~10 GBs, with a penalty of ~10 MBs, you'd need approximately 9000 (nine thousand) proposals "like this one here and there" to get the x10 you speak of. If I am reading correctly, there are about ~50 fesco proposals per Fedora release (https://pagure.io/fesco/roadmap?status=all), so it would take 180 releases over 90 years to get there by accumulating proposals like this one. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
