X-Original-To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org Delivered-To: alpine-devel@mail.alpinelinux.org Received: from mail-pd0-f174.google.com (mail-pd0-f174.google.com [209.85.192.174]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.alpinelinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9374DC00F6 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 20:08:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pd0-f174.google.com with SMTP id x10so14413536pdj.19 for ; Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:08:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=Bxo/32U98HLCZVupjI4RcW+zmPFVvzVZfTfEZJIyfZc=; b=uxpwjTbGhHtf51bAVS8oo3SFybbrJ6MPc0uKCnB/atzqgEntOMk/UDxXUuLL9X1v0N b+WJg+2lxbVvPb/O1/l1ryCI7kf3X5Um2Uy58HvNu6GmQo84xjAv7c2Yjvvn8HAPX05t jAskgetCCHfdwm56AS9IfJ1tn6XhdEN57YokM9PQwG0NC2QdAGH30J2B+s2PyFLOvqEd HvajYzlEWnERpRjNWdOHWlDi9KKNDppjXSebCHZ7hob4y4CAWKPpEix2lppjki0f5MoX CH5QtKg6DQGmA2rDiwbuGqtDo9RlHa/U8i/poo7hcBMMhzYp8n5qZnKIV1XdItjGX2po ESRQ== X-Received: by 10.68.230.228 with SMTP id tb4mr90711846pbc.108.1388693322480; Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:08:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from microknoppix.localnet ([117.226.225.77]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id er3sm103786049pbb.40.2014.01.02.12.08.38 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:08:41 -0800 (PST) From: "V.Krishn" Reply-To: vkrishn4@gmail.com To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org Subject: Re: [alpine-devel] Avoiding bloat for Lua 5.1/5.2 modules Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 01:19:26 +0530 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.9.6-64; KDE/4.8.4; x86_64; ; ) References: <20131231120758.50b5d559@ncopa-desktop.alpinelinux.org> In-Reply-To: <20131231120758.50b5d559@ncopa-desktop.alpinelinux.org> X-Mailinglist: alpine-devel Precedence: list List-Id: Alpine Development List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201401030119.26938.vkrishn4@gmail.com> On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 04:37:58 PM Natanael Copa wrote: > Hi, > > I am a bit in doubt how to handle the Lua modules and 5.1 and 5.2 compat. > > I originally wanted to have lua5.1- and lua5.2- > packages because that would allow us to avoid bloat. You could have a > pure lua5.2 system. > > I am not so sure anymore. > > What I wanted: > * separate arch specific modules (compiled C code) for 5.1 and 5.2 so > we don't get both installed unless wanted. Example: lua-filesystem. > * join arch agnostic lua modules (pure lua modules) and use symlinks > for 5.1/5.2 compat. Since they normally support both 5.1 and 5.2 the > code itself is identical. Rather than install 2 copies of same lua > code, we want use symlinks. Example: lua-penlight. > * the lua- (without lua version) should pull in both > lua5.1-module and lua5.2-module. (or pull in the "current" lua > version of the module) > > Now, this becomes a bit compilcated when dealing with dependencies. > Lets take the example with lua-penlight and lua-filesystem. > > Since lua-penlight is a pure lua module and supports both 5.1 and 5.2 > we want use symlinks. So lua5.1-penlight is just a symlink to > lua5.2-penlight. However, if lua5.1-penlight depends on lua5.2-penlight > it will also pull in the lua5.2-penlight dependency lua5.2-filesystem - > which we don't want for lua5.1-penlight. > I am little confused if, lua5.1-penlight ===============. | || | depends on || | || V depends on V lua5.2-penlight --------------> lua5.2-filesystem does this not mean lua5.2-filesystem is required by lua5.1-penlight to run ? 1. Is it possible to estimate the % usage of users still wanting v5.1 ? What I was initially thinking if AL v2.7 was marked as transitional version then 2.8, 2.9 to 3.0 could be made to be a clean-up phase. (my initial thouht was of lots of other pkgs newer additions) In all, any higher and better version should have least overhead/bloat and clean installation , meaning for users in AL v2.8 installing lua 5.1 would come with some minor-over head, and for AL v3.0 lua 5.1 may/maynot be available. If available the over-head may be even larger and likely having both versions may not work. In reason with available developer resources, I think such scenario may be acceptable. 2. Is it not easy to just add older repo and install lua 5.1 ? -- Regards, V.Krishn > I think we have the following options: > > 1) Continue try avoid bloat and have a common package without dependency: > > * lua5.1-filesystem: has lua 5.1 module > > * lua5.2-filesystem: had lua 5.2 module > > * lua-filesystem: depends on lua5.1-filesystem and > lua5.2-filesystem. > > * lua-penlight-common: has the .lua files but does not depend on > lua-filesystem. in it self not useful. (maybe > install the .lua files to /usr/share/lua/common) > > * lua5.1-penlight: depends on lua-penlight-common and > lua5.1-filesystem. It has symlinks to the > files provided by lua-penlight-common. > > * lua5.2-penlight: depends on lua-penlight-common and > lua5.2-filesystem. (might have symlinks too) > > * lua-penlight: depends on lua5.1-penlight and lua5.2-penlight. > > This means 7(!) packages for 2 Lua modules. > > 2) We embrace the bloat and always ship both lua 5.1 and 5.2 in same > package (like Debian does): > > * lua-filesystem: ships both 5.1 and 5.2 modules. > > * lua-penlight: ships both 5.1 and 5.2 modues and depends only > lua-filesystem. > > This is way simpler, but will mean that you will always get the > moduels for both lua versions, regardless if you use both or not (I > assume you normally only will want run one version of Lua). This > means bloat. > > What do you think? We keep it 'simple' and accept the bloat, or we make > it 'complicated' to avoid the bloat? > > Some things to keep in mind: we have many more C modules (arch > specific) modules than noarch (pure Lua) modules. > > -nc --- Unsubscribe: alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org Help: alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org ---