@enough-analyst-54434 @happy-kitchen-89482 @hundreds-father-404 @rough-minister-58256: @average-vr-56795 has proposed a really interesting way to decouple the "ipex" or "dehydrated pex" from the rest of the pex architecture, by introducing a customizable bootstrap hook: see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B_g0Ofs8aQsJtrePPR1PCtSAKgBG1o59AhS_NwfFnbI/edit?disco=AAAADyHorIY in the above doc. I'd love to get your thoughts on whether that seems like an effective way to decouple this specialized use case (building/uploading super massive pex files) from the rest of the pex architecture. I was really excited when I saw this comment today, and would love to help develop the idea further if it seems promising. A full review of the doc isn't needed right now if you don't have bandwidth -- just a description of the concerns we should address in architecting this proposal -- we can try to fill in the blanks. cc @witty-crayon-22786 @early-needle-54791

@enough-analyst-54434: would appreciate your feedback on this when you get a chance

I think I have a way to do this that layers on top of pex cleanly leaving pex the tool and runtime unaltered but still shipping a pex. I'm spiking on this today and will comment one way or another on the doc with something more useful than handwavy words by tomorrow.

Thanks a ton. This continues to be an important effort for us, so we definitely appreciate the time.

this is very exciting to hear! would love to help figure out any remaining corners!

Sketched the idea in the doc as an answer to the open question - since I think this can best be done by a layer completely on top of pex with no changes to pex save for unification of cache directories. My spike yesterday unified those cache directories successfully - which is a good feature to have in pex anyhow. I'll post that PR today and flesh out my proposal more fully in a an issue I'll link to in the design doc.

thanks a ton!