On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 1:38 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 7/7/21 1:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Neal Gompa:
>> Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
> We have a mandate from Fesco that the core toolchain must depend on
> Guile. Naturally that makes updates rather difficult.
So I've gone and checked the Fesco issue where dropping guile
support from make + gdb was discussed:
And I must say that I find the argumentation for rejecting the
change very very weak. I would really expect Fesco to make better
motivated decisions then this one.
I'm especially shocked about how Fesco is in essence mandating
a group of maintainers to spend time maintaining a feature
where they clearly have indicated they don't want to maintain
My being shocked here is not so much about the guile issue,
but about a IMHO much bigger issue underlying this decision:
Since when does Fesco get to mandate on which features our
volunteer maintainers get to spend there time ?
I understand there need to be rules and I can understand
Fesco denying approval for enabling / adding certain
features for a wide set of reasons, thus in essence blocking
volunteers from spending time on something because that
something is deemed undesirable for Fedora.
But this is different here Fesco is telling a group of
maintainers that they must maintain a feature even though
they have indicated that they find the benefits of that
feature not worth the amount of time it costs to maintain
support for that feature. So in essence Fesco is telling
the maintainers that they MUST spend time maintaining this
even though they don't want this.
IMHO this is just outrageous and goes way way beyond the
purview of Fesco.
Now if dropping this feature would cause major breakage this
would a different story, But in the whole discussion about
this, at least as documented in the Fesco issue, no actual
users of this feature have been indentified and nothing will
break by disabling this as far is is known. So since there
is no known breakage caused by this, I end up circling back
to this basically telling Fesco that the make/gdb timers
MUST spend them on maintaining this even though they
don't want to (and have good reasons for not wanting to).
Which again, is IHMO pretty outrageous really.
Sorry Fesco, I know that you all do a lot of (hard) work
as Fesco members and do your best when making decisions
like this; and I don't doubt that your intentions where
well, but you made a big booboo here (IMHO).
I urge Fesco to reconsider this and I suggest that we
(Fedora) take another serious look at implementing:
for Fedora 35.
I feel like I need to chime in here as a FESco member who was part of
As others have already mentioned in this thread, this change was
Rejected by the smallest possible margin, with four +1 votes, two
abstentions, and two -1 votes, while it needed five +1 votes to pass.
As I was one of the two "±0" votes: My reason for not voting +1 was
that impact analysis was only based on anecdata, if at all - either
"popcon data from debian shows that almost nobody has make-guile
installed", or "I can't believe anybody actually uses this", but no
actual analysis was done - which, for a central package like make,
would be important, IMO. The stated reason of "we don't want to
maintain this" was also weak, since the developers still maintain the
guile support upstream, and if this was really in preparation for
dropping guile support from ELN / RHEL 9 via a Change in Fedora 34,
that was not really a good reason to "just do it in Fedora first"
However, you are right - FESCo cannot "force" anybody to maintain
anything, but the change proposal was sufficiently "weak" that it was
- barely - not accepted.
But I think almost any package maintainer in Fedora would actually
*look if any optional feature is actually used* before just silently
dropping it from their package, or at least notify maintainers of
dependent packages that feature X was considered for removal. I don't
see this case any different, just that make is a more prominent
package than most.
So: I'd like to see actual investigation into whether the guile
support is actually used in any Fedora package, and if it's going to
be removed, it should be removed upstream first.
If it turns out that really actually nobody uses this, why not drop it
upstream, and have the guile support removal come with the next GNU
toolchain Change for Fedora?