prelink performance gains

[Daniel P. Berrange]

On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 07:28:07AM -0700, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Paul Wouters <pwouters at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Oct 2013, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> >> I agree there remains some work on prelink itself and some packages around
> >> to
> >> make prelink relevant again
> >
> >
> > I don't mean to pick a fight with you Jan, but you are the only person
> > actively defending prelink right now. When even you reach the above
> > conclusions and cannot put in the time, and the maintainer isn't looking
> > at filed bugs for over a year, the only real answer is to turn prelink
> > into a dead.package for now.
> 
> There's no reason to kill the package entirely.  Some people still
> want to use it despite the current issues.  So just don't install it
> by default.  Reducing everything down to absolutes isn't helpful.

Agreed, there's no reason to kill it entirely. Let people opt-in if
they wish to install it later & understand the cost/benefit tradeoff.

Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|