| 29 Jul 2025 |
 emily | when stuff doesn't need things that are in their closure to work, that's a non-ideal situation in general, if there's a reason you'd want to use them in size-constrained environments and the burden of splitting isn't too high (and the fact that make-initrd-ng produces something that works with them means that it shouldn't be too hard to split anything that does go in there now, by definition) | 17:44:24 |
| emily | no, I mean, if someone wants to include a full Python application in their initrd and pay the cost it seems fair that it should work | 17:44:49 |
| emily | so there wouldn't be a closure minimization cost paid there | 17:45:00 |
 ElvishJerricco | I think in a perfect world every binary would be its own output path in every single package and this would be trivial. But that's not what we have. | 17:45:45 |
| emily | I might be wrong about the work it'd take to split things up! but my prediction is that using the normal closure mechanisms and just splitting up packages where relevant is not going to look more complex than what we do instead right now | 17:45:50 |
