psabata added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
A couple of things here.
* the "fork" option implies a lot of overhead indeed, however, most of it can be automated with simple scripts here and there -- automatic depsolving on dist-git changes, automatic rebuilds, that's all possible;
* building on top of H&P is not only about having the build dependencies available, it also relies on currently undefined behavior where your module updates packages owned by another module (Atomic Host updating/overriding Host & Platform content in this case); we intend to make this impossible in the long term so I'm not sure how this would work
* if Atomic Host is just a Platform profile, you cannot actually change anything in the sources -- no custom patches, minimized builds or alternative implementations; not even different versions of anything; furthermore, what is actually installed in the composed OSTree is defined in the JSON file, not the module (although I would be awesome if we could generate it from a profile later on)
Regarding `atomic-build-deps`, such a module would be more or less identical to `bootstrap` and I would discourage you from pursuing that path.
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/312
walters added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
But `atomic-build-deps` would include huge amounts of stuff...just think about all of the individual golang BR packages. Just *today* that's already vast amounts of painful busywork that is ad-hoc automated via https://github.com/gofed/gofed - modularity means having *another* list of all of those packages. (This again is a general problem with modularity layering on top of all the stuff that exists now rather than fixing any of it)
Now at least for docker it looks like we gave up on trying to use split-out golang BRs. And hmm, skopeo also just uses `with_bundled` now too.
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/312
mattdm added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
> The "build on top" thing brings in a requirement to modularize all of the build dependencies. I know there's a prototype "autotools" module for example, but taking this out requires modules for a vast array of stuff, from golang out to corner cases like gtk-doc (currently requires perl), etc.
FWIW, I'm completely okay with a "atomic-build-deps" module; this can start as an ugly grab-bag of anything required, and can over time instead reference more specific other modules (and possibly eventually _only_ reference other modules).
I feel like we _should_ be able to do "build on top", possibly with "Atomic Host" as a host&platform Profile.
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/312
walters added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
So...I am still uncertain about the distinct paths of:
1) Build fork of host&platform
2) Build on top of host&platform
The "fork" option carries with it a lot of maintenance overhead imposed by the modularity build system - we'll have distinct binaries as well, and that's going to invalidate some of the testing.
The "build on top" thing brings in a requirement to modularize all of the build dependencies. I know there's a prototype "autotools" module for example, but taking this out requires modules for a vast array of stuff, from `golang` out to corner cases like `gtk-doc` (currently requires perl), etc.
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/312
Minutes: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2017-09-06/fedora_atomic…
Log: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2017-09-06/fedora_atomic…
#fedora-meeting-1: fedora_atomic_wg
Meeting started by jbrooks at 17:00:10 UTC (full logs).
Meeting summary
roll call (jbrooks, 17:00:26)
action items from last meeting (jbrooks, 17:04:46)
ACTION: jbrooks to submit asciibinder pkg for review (jbrooks, 17:05:58)
open floor (jbrooks, 17:07:09)
atomic-host-docs
https://github.com/projectatomic/atomic-host-docs/issues (jbrooks,
17:09:08)
ACTION: jberkus to follow up on partial container images from Flock
(jbrooks, 17:14:01)
ACTION: jbrooks to create issue for adding examples to container
guidelines (jbrooks, 17:16:40)
Meeting ended at 17:28:11 UTC (full logs).
Action items
jbrooks to submit asciibinder pkg for review
jberkus to follow up on partial container images from Flock
jbrooks to create issue for adding examples to container guidelines
Action items, by person
jberkus
jberkus to follow up on partial container images from Flock
jbrooks
jbrooks to submit asciibinder pkg for review
jbrooks to create issue for adding examples to container guidelines
People present (lines said)
jberkus (28)
jbrooks (24)
maxamillion (13)
zodbot (11)
ksinny (9)
kushal (5)
davdunc (4)
yzhang (4)
miabbott (2)
Generated by MeetBot 0.1.4.
The status of the issue: `Move memcached container image from Fedora-Dockerfiles GitHub into DistGit ` of project: `atomic-wg` has been updated to: Closed as Fixed by dustymabe.
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/205
dustymabe added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
@phracek - thanks so much!
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/205
hhorak added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
Sounds good to me.
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/326