OpenSUSE Build Service?

[Jeroen Janssen]

Hi,

I'm not sure if this is the correct Fedora mailinglist, but has anyone
had a look at the OpenSuSe Build Service pages (
http://en.opensuse.org/Build_Service )?

There are two presentations (from FOSDEM) about it and it seems they
have also done some experimenting with building non SuSe distributions
with this build system (like Fedora Core 4).

Is this something that also could benefit the Fedora Project?

Best regards,

Jeroen Janssen

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Jeroen Janssen schrieb:
>  I'm not sure if this is the correct Fedora mailinglist, but has
> anyone
>  had a look at the OpenSuSe Build Service pages (
>  http://en.opensuse.org/Build_Service )? 
I posted some thoughts some days ago here:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2006-November/msg00...

>  Is this something that also could benefit the Fedora Project? 
I don't think so. I think we should make Fedora
{Core,Extras,Alternatives,Legacy,Whatever} so good and flexible that
something like that is not needed normally. Just my 2 cent.

Cu
thl

[Jeroen Janssen]

On 11/18/06, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info&gt; wrote:
>  > Is this something that also could benefit the Fedora Project?
>
>  I don't think so. I think we should make Fedora
>  {Core,Extras,Alternatives,Legacy,Whatever} so good and flexible that
>  something like that is not needed normally. Just my 2 cent. 
Well I was thinking about this in relation with Fedora's Plague Server
( http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Projects/Plague ) which seems to
have somewhat of a similar purpose :

* Plague is a distributed package build system, suitable for building
a whole Linux distribution (like Fedora Core), or for building
additional packages (like Fedora Extras)

* The openSUSE Build Service provides an infrastructure for the open
development of future SUSE Linux-based distributions.

Both have a "compile-farm architecture" for different target platform (archs).

The projects seem to solve similar problems.
---
Jeroen Janssen

[Jesse Keating]

On Saturday 18 November 2006 09:32, Jeroen Janssen wrote:
>  The projects seem to solve similar problems. 
I think the major point here is that plague is open source, and all our 
rpms/srpms are freely available.  You can setup your own "Fedora" buildfarm 
to build your packages.  With OpenSuSE's buildstuff, can you get their build 
software?  Can you install it on your own systems, tweak it for your own 
needs?

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora

[Jeroen Janssen]

On 11/18/06, Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  On Saturday 18 November 2006 09:32, Jeroen Janssen wrote:
>  > The projects seem to solve similar problems.
>
>  I think the major point here is that plague is open source, and all our
>  rpms/srpms are freely available.  You can setup your own "Fedora" buildfarm
>  to build your packages.  With OpenSuSE's buildstuff, can you get their build
>  software?  Can you install it on your own systems, tweak it for your own
>  needs? 
Well, maybe I should have mentioned it, but that is exactly my point :
the OpenSuSe  Build Service is also open source (GPLv2) .

See also http://forge.novell.com/modules/xfmod/project/?opensuse for
access to the sources.

So basically, there are (at least) two opensource 'buildfarm' systems
that are being developed now. I know that there are probably a lot
differences between the SuSe and RedHat distributions, but it makes
sense to me to check if their build system and plague can benefit from
each other.
---
Jeroen Janssen

[Jarosław Górny]

Dnia sobota, 18 listopada 2006 16:09, Jesse Keating napisał:
>  On Saturday 18 November 2006 09:32, Jeroen Janssen wrote:
>  > The projects seem to solve similar problems. 
(...)
>   With OpenSuSE's buildstuff, can you get their
>  build software?  Can you install it on your own systems, tweak it for your
>  own needs? 
In theory: yes ;)
In practice: I didn't manage to browse project repository with this WebSVN (or 
whatever). I didn't manage to fetch sources via svn (although they provide an 
url - it doesn't work).

Besides, IMVHO Novell-M$ agreement is a big obstacle here as well.

-- 
Jaroslaw Gorny

[Dan Williams]

On Sat, 2006-11-18 at 10:09 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
>  On Saturday 18 November 2006 09:32, Jeroen Janssen wrote:
>  > The projects seem to solve similar problems.
>  
>  I think the major point here is that plague is open source, and all our 
>  rpms/srpms are freely available.  You can setup your own "Fedora" buildfarm 
>  to build your packages.  With OpenSuSE's buildstuff, can you get their build 
>  software?  Can you install it on your own systems, tweak it for your own 
>  needs? 
Yeah, you can:

http://en.opensuse.org/Build_Service#Build_Service_Source_Code

While that says that "the forge svn server is having checkout problems"
those problems appear to be solved as I could check out the sources.

Dan

>  --
>  Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list
>  Fedora-buildsys-list(a)redhat.com
>  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list

[Dan Williams]

On Sat, 2006-11-18 at 13:39 +0100, Jeroen Janssen wrote:
>  Hi,
>  
>  I'm not sure if this is the correct Fedora mailinglist, but has anyone
>  had a look at the OpenSuSe Build Service pages (
>  http://en.opensuse.org/Build_Service )?
>  
>  There are two presentations (from FOSDEM) about it and it seems they
>  have also done some experimenting with building non SuSe distributions
>  with this build system (like Fedora Core 4).
>  
>  Is this something that also could benefit the Fedora Project? 
Having already written most of Plague by the time OSBS came out, I read
over pretty much everything about it when it was announced last year.  

The purpose of the two do seem to overlap; however OSBS appears to have
a much larger scope.  It appears to try to be the one-stop shop for
building _everything_ for any distribution with any build system or
source-control system; which is fine.  The pitch in those slides was
basically "build your release packages on our buildsystem."

I don't think we want such a wide scope and fuzzy focus.  I think Fedora
is better served by a specific, targetted system that builds _Fedora_
packages.  That's a fairly parochial attitude, but one which I think is
in the best interest of Fedora.  Given that everyone working on and
admining the Fedora Extras buildsystem is a volunteer, we don't need to
be spreading our resources out even further supporting something like
the OSBS.  We should be concentrating on building excellent packages for
Fedora, and arguably nothing else; we cannot be everything to everybody
or we are doomed to fail.

The building of packages is such an important and code piece of a
distribution that it cannot _not_ be under the control of the project,
and it cannot _not_ be _accountable_ to the project.  As more of the
Core responsibility gets spun out to the wider Fedora project, this only
becomes more critical.  We need to be able to admin the systems, we need
to be able fix problems when they arise, we need to be able to
demonstrate accountability and security of the buildsystem.  Without
that, there is no trust in the integrity of the distribution.

Cheers,
Dan

>  Best regards,
>  
>  Jeroen Janssen
>  
>  --
>  Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list
>  Fedora-buildsys-list(a)redhat.com
>  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list

[Dan Williams]

On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 18:28 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
>  On Sat, 2006-11-18 at 13:39 +0100, Jeroen Janssen wrote:
>  > Hi,
>  > 
>  > I'm not sure if this is the correct Fedora mailinglist, but has anyone
>  > had a look at the OpenSuSe Build Service pages (
>  > http://en.opensuse.org/Build_Service )?
>  > 
>  > There are two presentations (from FOSDEM) about it and it seems they
>  > have also done some experimenting with building non SuSe distributions
>  > with this build system (like Fedora Core 4).
>  > 
>  > Is this something that also could benefit the Fedora Project?
>  
>  Having already written most of Plague by the time OSBS came out, I read
>  over pretty much everything about it when it was announced last year.  
>  
>  The purpose of the two do seem to overlap; however OSBS appears to have
>  a much larger scope.  It appears to try to be the one-stop shop for
>  building _everything_ for any distribution with any build system or
>  source-control system; which is fine.  The pitch in those slides was
>  basically "build your release packages on our buildsystem."
>  
>  I don't think we want such a wide scope and fuzzy focus.  I think Fedora
>  is better served by a specific, targetted system that builds _Fedora_
>  packages.  That's a fairly parochial attitude, but one which I think is
>  in the best interest of Fedora.  Given that everyone working on and
>  admining the Fedora Extras buildsystem is a volunteer, we don't need to
>  be spreading our resources out even further supporting something like
>  the OSBS.  We should be concentrating on building excellent packages for
>  Fedora, and arguably nothing else; we cannot be everything to everybody
>  or we are doomed to fail.
>  
>  The building of packages is such an important and code piece of a
>  distribution that it cannot _not_ be under the control of the project,
>  and it cannot _not_ be _accountable_ to the project.  As more of the
>  Core responsibility gets spun out to the wider Fedora project, this only
>  becomes more critical.  We need to be able to admin the systems, we need
>  to be able fix problems when they arise, we need to be able to
>  demonstrate accountability and security of the buildsystem.  Without
>  that, there is no trust in the integrity of the distribution. 
This doesn't mean that code could be shared, of course, given compatible
licensing.

dan

>  Cheers,
>  Dan
>  
>  > Best regards,
>  > 
>  > Jeroen Janssen
>  > 
>  > --
>  > Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list
>  > Fedora-buildsys-list(a)redhat.com
>  > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
>  
>  --
>  Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list
>  Fedora-buildsys-list(a)redhat.com
>  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list

[seth vidal]

On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 18:28 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
>  Having already written most of Plague by the time OSBS came out, I
> read
>  over pretty much everything about it when it was announced last year.  
>  
>  The purpose of the two do seem to overlap; however OSBS appears to have
>  a much larger scope.  It appears to try to be the one-stop shop for
>  building _everything_ for any distribution with any build system or
>  source-control system; which is fine.  The pitch in those slides was
>  basically "build your release packages on our buildsystem."
>  
>  I don't think we want such a wide scope and fuzzy focus.  I think Fedora
>  is better served by a specific, targetted system that builds _Fedora_
>  packages.  That's a fairly parochial attitude, but one which I think is
>  in the best interest of Fedora.  Given that everyone working on and
>  admining the Fedora Extras buildsystem is a volunteer, we don't need to
>  be spreading our resources out even further supporting something like
>  the OSBS.  We should be concentrating on building excellent packages for
>  Fedora, and arguably nothing else; we cannot be everything to everybody
>  or we are doomed to fail.
>  
>  The building of packages is such an important and code piece of a
>  distribution that it cannot _not_ be under the control of the project,
>  and it cannot _not_ be _accountable_ to the project.  As more of the
>  Core responsibility gets spun out to the wider Fedora project, this only
>  becomes more critical.  We need to be able to admin the systems, we need
>  to be able fix problems when they arise, we need to be able to
>  demonstrate accountability and security of the buildsystem.  Without
>  that, there is no trust in the integrity of the distribution.
>   
I agree with Dan's assessment. Furthermore, he's done a great job giving
fedora a buildsystem and we should continue to enhance it.

Additionally, it might be starting to be a good time to be afraid of
things with Novell's copyright over them. We'll never know what patents
we might be treading upon and only allowed to use provided we're not
with a company.

-sv