Re: Pure space

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 11:38:36 +0000
> From: Pip Cet <pipcet@protonmail.com>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > See my other messages in this thread.
> 
> I asked whether the decision to keep purespace (by artificially linking
> it to another feature which we want to keep) could be revisited.

The linking is not "artificial", and I explained why.  It is very much
real, at least for me.  If that is still not clear, let me be
completely clear: I'm opposed to any suggestion that will force us to
add significant maintenance burden for supporting obscure and
rarely-used configurations that almost no one builds and tests.  Maybe
you don't know, but I'm forced to build no less than 6 different
configurations every week, just to make sure they don't get broken.
For that reason, I WANT THE UNEXEC BUILD REMOVED!!  If what it takes
is to staunchly object removing the pure space unless unexec goes with
it, so be it.

> IMO, circumstances have changed considerably.  My guess is you
> disagree.

Your opinion is noted, but it has nothing to do with reality: I'm
required to build and sometimes fix all those configurations today the
same as I needed to do it several years ago, when we had the previous
"remove pure space" discussion.  I can sum all the hours I needed to
spend on this as result, if it will change your mind and perhaps cause
you to value my time and efforts more than you seem to do now.

> If the two issues are to be considered inextricably linked (which,
> again, they're not; removing pure space does not require any changes to
> unexec dumping), then any effort to maintain the purespace code must
> count as "investing any development efforts in the unexec builds",
> because that's the only reason maintaining purespace is still necessary.

From where I stand, it is clear that if we keep the unexec build, we
should keep it in good shape.  When the issue is looked at from this
perspective, rather than from the nonchalant one you propose (which
doesn't really care if unexec breaks or becomes less useful), then the
fallacy of your arguments should be crystal clear.

And I don't think I care for your hints about my alleged lies.  The
fact that we disagree doesn't mean that I intentionally tell lies, it
just means we have different perspectives, different experiences, and
different responsibilities here.

> IOW, if we count all the complexity and maintenance work that purespace
> requires as costs of keeping the unexec builds, then we should drop
> unexec ASAP.

I agree, and urge you to try to convince the single person who so far
objects to removing unexec, instead of wasting your time on trying to
change my mind on that.

> >> What do you think about making pure space overflow fatal as a first
> >> step?
> >
> > How would that help?
> 
> It would mean we could do without changes such as those in the patch
> attached to the original message.

I saw no patch attached to the original message (nor any other message
in this thread).  Am I lying again?