On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 6:18 AM Omair Majid omajid@redhat.com wrote:
Hey,
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com writes:
Keep in mind that this isn't exactly the first time we've done this either: the .NET runtime is similarly screwy for its bootstrap process, and that's split across a couple of source packages.
At this point, we hold our noses and hope for the best. At least there's a chance to reduce the pain with .NET over time as the Red Hat .NET folks work to improve upstream. There's basically zero chance for improvement with OpenJDK because of the nature of the upstream and how old and crufty they are.
I know it's tangential to the main discussion, but since .NET was called out by name, I would like to get your thoughts on this. What would you say are the biggest concerns with the .NET setup?
Here's how I understand the current state. There's a single source package for each major version of .NET (dotnet6.0, dotnet7.0.). That source is compiled into the complete .NET SDK+Runtime for each version. There are no source or binary dependencies between versions. Each version is built/updated independently. Only the first build for each major version requires a full bootstrap (using prebuilt binaries), but that's a one time. Subsequent builds of each .NET major version use the previous build of that major version of .NET.
With that context, what primary concerns do you think we should be focusing on?
That's actually a lot better than it was when I helped with dotnet package review and bootstrap with 3.1.
The main worry I have is how we're going to be able to build dotnet for a new architecture when nothing exists. RISC-V is the next big architecture, but the build for that will be difficult.
It would also be good to have packaging guidelines for .NET applications, since there's a number of server and desktop Linux apps written in .NET languages that people would want to bring to Fedora.
-- 真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!