1:22 a.m.
I have submitted a Flock proposal to have a common discussion session for
(modern) Language SIGs. I think for this to be successful we need
representatives from various Language SIGs to be there (Rust, Haskell,
OCaml, Golang and of course Python and older ecosystems like Perl, R, TeX
come to mind immediately - surely there are more). Language packaging
experts are also welcome of course independently or affiliated to one or
more language SIGs. Of course I also hope there will be broad attendance by
interested contributors.
The idea is to talk about common and distinct problems faced, both to learn
from each other and to come up with practical ideas and plans for generally
easing Fedora's mass packaging efforts.
If you plan to be at Flock and are willing and able to represent your
Language SIG at this Flock session do please reply or reach out to me. I
think each SIG could do a brief presentation there to kick off the dialogue.
Thanks, Jens
2:59 a.m.
On 05/07/2023 08:22, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote:
I have submitted a Flock proposal to have a common discussion session
for (modern) Language SIGs. I think for this to be successful we need
representatives from various Language SIGs to be there (Rust, Haskell,
OCaml, Golang and of course Python and older ecosystems like Perl, R,
TeX come to mind immediately - surely there are more). Language
packaging experts are also welcome of course independently or affiliated
to one or more language SIGs. Of course I also hope there will be broad
attendance by interested contributors.
The idea is to talk about common and distinct problems faced, both to
learn from each other and to come up with practical ideas and plans for
generally easing Fedora's mass packaging efforts.
If you plan to be at Flock and are willing and able to represent your
Language SIG at this Flock session do please reply or reach out to me. I
think each SIG could do a brief presentation there to kick off the dialogue.
That sounds like a fantastic idea! Sometimes, during the Go SIG
meetings, the question "What might the other SIGs have done?" appears.
I believe we could achieve more uniformity and provide a better user
experience by implementing this.
You have my +1 :)
Thanks, Jens
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
--
Alejandro
5:39 a.m.
Oops, somehow I forgot Ruby -- anyway all Lang ecosystem SIGs participation
to welcome and encouraged of course.
On Wed, 5 July 2023, 14:22 Jens-Ulrik Petersen, <petersen(a)redhat.com> wrote:
I have submitted a Flock proposal to have a common discussion session
for
(modern) Language SIGs. I think for this to be successful we need
representatives from various Language SIGs to be there (Rust, Haskell,
OCaml, Golang and of course Python and older ecosystems like Perl, R, TeX
come to mind immediately - surely there are more). Language packaging
experts are also welcome of course independently or affiliated to one or
more language SIGs. Of course I also hope there will be broad attendance by
interested contributors.
The idea is to talk about common and distinct problems faced, both to
learn from each other and to come up with practical ideas and plans for
generally easing Fedora's mass packaging efforts.
If you plan to be at Flock and are willing and able to represent your
Language SIG at this Flock session do please reply or reach out to me. I
think each SIG could do a brief presentation there to kick off the dialogue.
Thanks, Jens
6:39 a.m.
On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 8:23 AM Jens-Ulrik Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> wrote:
I have submitted a Flock proposal to have a common discussion session for (modern)
Language SIGs. I think for this to be successful we need representatives from various
Language SIGs to be there (Rust, Haskell, OCaml, Golang and of course Python and older
ecosystems like Perl, R, TeX come to mind immediately - surely there are more). Language
packaging experts are also welcome of course independently or affiliated to one or more
language SIGs. Of course I also hope there will be broad attendance by interested
contributors.
This is a great idea, but I don't think any Rust SIG members will be
at Flock this year :(
Fabio
9:09 a.m.
On Wed, Jul 05, 2023 at 01:39:47PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 8:23 AM Jens-Ulrik Petersen
<petersen(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> I have submitted a Flock proposal to have a common discussion session for (modern)
Language SIGs. I think for this to be successful we need representatives from various
Language SIGs to be there (Rust, Haskell, OCaml, Golang and of course Python and older
ecosystems like Perl, R, TeX come to mind immediately - surely there are more). Language
packaging experts are also welcome of course independently or affiliated to one or more
language SIGs. Of course I also hope there will be broad attendance by interested
contributors.
This is a great idea, but I don't think any Rust SIG members will be
at Flock this year :(
I'll be there and I hope to join the session.
Zbyszek
10:36 a.m.
On Wed Jul 26, 2023 at 14:09 +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Wed, Jul 05, 2023 at 01:39:47PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 8:23 AM Jens-Ulrik Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> >
> > I have submitted a Flock proposal to have a common discussion session for
(modern) Language SIGs. I think for this to be successful we need representatives from
various Language SIGs to be there (Rust, Haskell, OCaml, Golang and of course Python and
older ecosystems like Perl, R, TeX come to mind immediately - surely there are more).
Language packaging experts are also welcome of course independently or affiliated to one
or more language SIGs. Of course I also hope there will be broad attendance by interested
contributors.
>
> This is a great idea, but I don't think any Rust SIG members will be
> at Flock this year :(
I'll be there and I hope to join the session.
I wanted to be there to talk about Changes/Mass_Retire_Golang_Leaves and
some of the other work we've been doing in the Go SIG to clean up our
packages, as I think it'd be useful to other SIGs, but I'll only be at
Flock the last two days :(.
--
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/They
3:45 a.m.
This is great to see! The issue of lack of coordination and
collaboration between the language SIGs also came up in my workshop on
DevConf [1]. Having them share more code/macros and spec file idioms
would make packaging as a whole easier. Not re-inventing solutions for
the same or at least similar problems would also be a great step forward.
Unfortunately there won't be anyone from the RPM team at Flock. If there
is anything you need or we can do to make this easier please bring that
up to me. We can always add more repositories in the
https://github.com/rpm-software-management organization if you need a
place for upstream repositories - especially if you want a place that is
more neutral when it comes to cooperation with other RPM based
distributions. Which is another dimension on which sharing and
cooperation should be extended.
As it is relevant for this meeting may be someone that attended my
workshop can give a 3 or 5 minute summary of the new Dynamic Spec
feature. Slides are available [2]. Slide 8 to 10 or 11 should be
sufficient. Unfortunately there isn't a recording of the workshop. Feel
free to bug me if you have questions.
Florian
[1] https://devconfcz2023.sched.com/event/d1c12cf5f5e4dec9b089b21781c1d9fd
[2]
https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/devconfcz2023/c2/DynamicBuilds-DevC...
5:10 a.m.
Dne 13. 07. 23 v 10:45 Florian Festi napsal(a):
As it is relevant for this meeting may be someone that attended my
workshop can give a 3 or 5 minute summary of the new Dynamic Spec
I can volunteer. I was on your workshop and I will be at Flock.
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
7:59 a.m.
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 6:11 PM Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Dne 13. 07. 23 v 10:45 Florian Festi napsal(a):
> As it is relevant for this meeting may be someone that attended my
> workshop can give a 3 or 5 minute summary of the new Dynamic Spec
I can volunteer. I was on your workshop and I will be at Flock.
Sure, thank you - that would be useful :up:
Jens
10:25 a.m.
On 7/5/23 02:22, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote:
I have submitted a Flock proposal to have a common discussion session
for
(modern) Language SIGs. I think for this to be successful we need
representatives from various Language SIGs to be there (Rust, Haskell,
OCaml, Golang and of course Python and older ecosystems like Perl, R, TeX
come to mind immediately - surely there are more). Language packaging
experts are also welcome of course independently or affiliated to one or
more language SIGs. Of course I also hope there will be broad attendance by
interested contributors.
The idea is to talk about common and distinct problems faced, both to learn
from each other and to come up with practical ideas and plans for generally
easing Fedora's mass packaging efforts.
If you plan to be at Flock and are willing and able to represent your
Language SIG at this Flock session do please reply or reach out to me. I
think each SIG could do a brief presentation there to kick off the dialogue.
Thanks, Jens
This could be made much easier if Fedora’s build system supported automated
cascading rebuilds of transitive dependencies. Haskell and OCaml are currently
linked statically in Fedora, but could be linked dynamically if cascading
rebuilds were supported. Rust is likely, IMO, gain improved support for dynamic
linking in the future.
I am _not_ going to start a debate as to whether requiring cascading rebuilds
is a good idea. That requirement comes from Haskell, OCaml, and Rust, not me,
and so any complaints should be directed there. This subthread is strictly
about changes to Fedora’s build system that make it easier to implement
cascading rebuilds.
--
Sincerely,
Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers)
10:32 a.m.
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 5:25 PM Demi Marie Obenour
<demiobenour(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/5/23 02:22, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote:
> I have submitted a Flock proposal to have a common discussion session for
> (modern) Language SIGs. I think for this to be successful we need
> representatives from various Language SIGs to be there (Rust, Haskell,
> OCaml, Golang and of course Python and older ecosystems like Perl, R, TeX
> come to mind immediately - surely there are more). Language packaging
> experts are also welcome of course independently or affiliated to one or
> more language SIGs. Of course I also hope there will be broad attendance by
> interested contributors.
>
> The idea is to talk about common and distinct problems faced, both to learn
> from each other and to come up with practical ideas and plans for generally
> easing Fedora's mass packaging efforts.
>
> If you plan to be at Flock and are willing and able to represent your
> Language SIG at this Flock session do please reply or reach out to me. I
> think each SIG could do a brief presentation there to kick off the dialogue.
>
> Thanks, Jens
This could be made much easier if Fedora’s build system supported automated
cascading rebuilds of transitive dependencies. Haskell and OCaml are currently
linked statically in Fedora, but could be linked dynamically if cascading
rebuilds were supported. Rust is likely, IMO, gain improved support for dynamic
linking in the future.
I am _not_ going to start a debate as to whether requiring cascading rebuilds
is a good idea. That requirement comes from Haskell, OCaml, and Rust, not me,
and so any complaints should be directed there. This subthread is strictly
about changes to Fedora’s build system that make it easier to implement
cascading rebuilds.
I'm not sure how often I have to repeat myself, but dynamic linking
for Rust crates is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Even if the build system
supported doing this, the average number of updates for Rust crates I
push every week would keep the build system busy for a month, not even
mentioning the fact that it would blow up package sizes exponentially
(yes, *exponentially*, by about a factor of 2^n, with the number n of
optional features they support). Please stop mentioning Rust in this
context, it is misleading.
Fabio
10:52 a.m.
On 7/13/23 11:32, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 5:25 PM Demi Marie Obenour
<demiobenour(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/5/23 02:22, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote:
>> I have submitted a Flock proposal to have a common discussion session for
>> (modern) Language SIGs. I think for this to be successful we need
>> representatives from various Language SIGs to be there (Rust, Haskell,
>> OCaml, Golang and of course Python and older ecosystems like Perl, R, TeX
>> come to mind immediately - surely there are more). Language packaging
>> experts are also welcome of course independently or affiliated to one or
>> more language SIGs. Of course I also hope there will be broad attendance by
>> interested contributors.
>>
>> The idea is to talk about common and distinct problems faced, both to learn
>> from each other and to come up with practical ideas and plans for generally
>> easing Fedora's mass packaging efforts.
>>
>> If you plan to be at Flock and are willing and able to represent your
>> Language SIG at this Flock session do please reply or reach out to me. I
>> think each SIG could do a brief presentation there to kick off the dialogue.
>>
>> Thanks, Jens
>
> This could be made much easier if Fedora’s build system supported automated
> cascading rebuilds of transitive dependencies. Haskell and OCaml are currently
> linked statically in Fedora, but could be linked dynamically if cascading
> rebuilds were supported. Rust is likely, IMO, gain improved support for dynamic
> linking in the future.
>
> I am _not_ going to start a debate as to whether requiring cascading rebuilds
> is a good idea. That requirement comes from Haskell, OCaml, and Rust, not me,
> and so any complaints should be directed there. This subthread is strictly
> about changes to Fedora’s build system that make it easier to implement
> cascading rebuilds.
I'm not sure how often I have to repeat myself, but dynamic linking
for Rust crates is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Even if the build system
supported doing this, the average number of updates for Rust crates I
push every week would keep the build system busy for a month, not even
mentioning the fact that it would blow up package sizes exponentially
(yes, *exponentially*, by about a factor of 2^n, with the number n of
optional features they support). Please stop mentioning Rust in this
context, it is misleading.
Fabio
Why is static linking any better? I’m not suggesting building the
Cartesian product of all possible build configurations. That would be
absurd. From my perspective it looks like static linking actually
requires _more_ effort from the builders: they must build everything
for each application that uses it instead of just building it once.
Also if Rust winds up being a significant fraction of the overall system,
the storage requirements of statically linking everything that uses Rust
will be a serious problem.
--
Sincerely,
Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers)
11:09 a.m.
On 7/13/23 11:52, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
On 7/13/23 11:32, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 5:25 PM Demi Marie Obenour
> <demiobenour(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 7/5/23 02:22, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote:
>>> I have submitted a Flock proposal to have a common discussion session for
>>> (modern) Language SIGs. I think for this to be successful we need
>>> representatives from various Language SIGs to be there (Rust, Haskell,
>>> OCaml, Golang and of course Python and older ecosystems like Perl, R, TeX
>>> come to mind immediately - surely there are more). Language packaging
>>> experts are also welcome of course independently or affiliated to one or
>>> more language SIGs. Of course I also hope there will be broad attendance by
>>> interested contributors.
>>>
>>> The idea is to talk about common and distinct problems faced, both to learn
>>> from each other and to come up with practical ideas and plans for generally
>>> easing Fedora's mass packaging efforts.
>>>
>>> If you plan to be at Flock and are willing and able to represent your
>>> Language SIG at this Flock session do please reply or reach out to me. I
>>> think each SIG could do a brief presentation there to kick off the dialogue.
>>>
>>> Thanks, Jens
>>
>> This could be made much easier if Fedora’s build system supported automated
>> cascading rebuilds of transitive dependencies. Haskell and OCaml are currently
>> linked statically in Fedora, but could be linked dynamically if cascading
>> rebuilds were supported. Rust is likely, IMO, gain improved support for dynamic
>> linking in the future.
>>
>> I am _not_ going to start a debate as to whether requiring cascading rebuilds
>> is a good idea. That requirement comes from Haskell, OCaml, and Rust, not me,
>> and so any complaints should be directed there. This subthread is strictly
>> about changes to Fedora’s build system that make it easier to implement
>> cascading rebuilds.
>
> I'm not sure how often I have to repeat myself, but dynamic linking
> for Rust crates is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Even if the build system
> supported doing this, the average number of updates for Rust crates I
> push every week would keep the build system busy for a month, not even
> mentioning the fact that it would blow up package sizes exponentially
> (yes, *exponentially*, by about a factor of 2^n, with the number n of
> optional features they support). Please stop mentioning Rust in this
> context, it is misleading.
>
> Fabio
Why is static linking any better? I’m not suggesting building the
Cartesian product of all possible build configurations. That would be
absurd. From my perspective it looks like static linking actually
requires _more_ effort from the builders: they must build everything
for each application that uses it instead of just building it once.
Also if Rust winds up being a significant fraction of the overall system,
the storage requirements of statically linking everything that uses Rust
will be a serious problem.
Is what I am missing that the builders cannot handle rebuilding all
of the transitive dependencies whenever a new version of a Rust crate
comes out? If so, that means that Fedora is shipping binaries built
from old versions of Rust crates.
--
Sincerely,
Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers)
11:14 a.m.
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 6:09 PM Demi Marie Obenour
<demiobenour(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/13/23 11:52, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> On 7/13/23 11:32, Fabio Valentini wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 5:25 PM Demi Marie Obenour
>> <demiobenour(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 7/5/23 02:22, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote:
>>>> I have submitted a Flock proposal to have a common discussion session
for
>>>> (modern) Language SIGs. I think for this to be successful we need
>>>> representatives from various Language SIGs to be there (Rust, Haskell,
>>>> OCaml, Golang and of course Python and older ecosystems like Perl, R,
TeX
>>>> come to mind immediately - surely there are more). Language packaging
>>>> experts are also welcome of course independently or affiliated to one
or
>>>> more language SIGs. Of course I also hope there will be broad attendance
by
>>>> interested contributors.
>>>>
>>>> The idea is to talk about common and distinct problems faced, both to
learn
>>>> from each other and to come up with practical ideas and plans for
generally
>>>> easing Fedora's mass packaging efforts.
>>>>
>>>> If you plan to be at Flock and are willing and able to represent your
>>>> Language SIG at this Flock session do please reply or reach out to me.
I
>>>> think each SIG could do a brief presentation there to kick off the
dialogue.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Jens
>>>
>>> This could be made much easier if Fedora’s build system supported automated
>>> cascading rebuilds of transitive dependencies. Haskell and OCaml are
currently
>>> linked statically in Fedora, but could be linked dynamically if cascading
>>> rebuilds were supported. Rust is likely, IMO, gain improved support for
dynamic
>>> linking in the future.
>>>
>>> I am _not_ going to start a debate as to whether requiring cascading
rebuilds
>>> is a good idea. That requirement comes from Haskell, OCaml, and Rust, not
me,
>>> and so any complaints should be directed there. This subthread is strictly
>>> about changes to Fedora’s build system that make it easier to implement
>>> cascading rebuilds.
>>
>> I'm not sure how often I have to repeat myself, but dynamic linking
>> for Rust crates is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Even if the build system
>> supported doing this, the average number of updates for Rust crates I
>> push every week would keep the build system busy for a month, not even
>> mentioning the fact that it would blow up package sizes exponentially
>> (yes, *exponentially*, by about a factor of 2^n, with the number n of
>> optional features they support). Please stop mentioning Rust in this
>> context, it is misleading.
>>
>> Fabio
>
> Why is static linking any better? I’m not suggesting building the
> Cartesian product of all possible build configurations. That would be
> absurd. From my perspective it looks like static linking actually
> requires _more_ effort from the builders: they must build everything
> for each application that uses it instead of just building it once.
> Also if Rust winds up being a significant fraction of the overall system,
> the storage requirements of statically linking everything that uses Rust
> will be a serious problem.
Is what I am missing that the builders cannot handle rebuilding all
of the transitive dependencies whenever a new version of a Rust crate
comes out? If so, that means that Fedora is shipping binaries built
from old versions of Rust crates.
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. If all Rust binaries were to be
rebuilt for any change in their dependency tree, there wouldn't be any
builder resources left for anything else.
Note that this is *still* better than just building using vendored
dependencies, because in that case, applications only get rebuilt
against newer dependencies for new versions (i.e. when the vendor
tarball is updated). Currently applications get rebuilt against new
dependencies at least every 6 months (i.e. for every mass rebuild),
plus any rebuilds for security updates that I do, plus for any patches
that need to be applied for other reasons (mostly, porting to new
versions of dependencies).
Fabio
11:56 a.m.
There isn’t a SIG, and I don’t know if there’s any interest
really, but I’d be happy to tell my tales of packaging Swift for
Fedora. :\
Ron
On 5 Jul 2023, at 1:22, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote:
I have submitted a Flock proposal to have a common discussion session
for
(modern) Language SIGs. I think for this to be successful we need
representatives from various Language SIGs to be there (Rust, Haskell,
OCaml, Golang and of course Python and older ecosystems like Perl, R,
TeX
come to mind immediately - surely there are more). Language packaging
experts are also welcome of course independently or affiliated to one
or
more language SIGs. Of course I also hope there will be broad
attendance by
interested contributors.
The idea is to talk about common and distinct problems faced, both to
learn
from each other and to come up with practical ideas and plans for
generally
easing Fedora's mass packaging efforts.
If you plan to be at Flock and are willing and able to represent your
Language SIG at this Flock session do please reply or reach out to me.
I
think each SIG could do a brief presentation there to kick off the
dialogue.
Thanks, Jens
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
7:47 a.m.
On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 12:56 AM Ron Olson <tachoknight(a)gmail.com> wrote:
There isn’t a SIG, and I don’t know if there’s any interest really,
but
I’d be happy to tell my tales of packaging Swift for Fedora. :\
Sure, such perspectives are definitely also welcome - this will be a broad
discussion.
In many cases the hurdles are even bigger with the newest developing
languages, where typically one finds that even the core/compiler's
buildsystem etc even does not cater well to distro needs in my experience.
Btw this cross-SIG community roundtable discussion has been scheduled
<https://flock2023.sched.com/event/1Or1Y/roundtable-packaging-issues-for-m...
for the first morning and I'm really looking forward to a good vigorous
conversation with broad participation.
Do reach out to me by reply or chat if you want to help out and be more
involved.
Jens
286
days inactive
307
days old
15 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Alejandro Sáez Morollón -
Demi Marie Obenour -
Fabio Valentini -
Florian Festi -
Jens-Ulrik Petersen -
Maxwell G -
Miroslav Suchý -
Ron Olson -
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek