7:41 p.m.
On 1/26/23 18:30, Reon Beon via devel wrote:
Are there still some outstanding bugs preventing this from happening?
There seems to be lots of missing functionality IMHO.
--
Orion Poplawski
he/him/his - surely the least important thing about me
IT Systems Manager 720-772-5637
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 https://www.nwra.com/
8:32 p.m.
It is proposed as a Change for Fedora 39. There are indeed quite a few features that will
need to be completed between now and then.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ReplaceDnfWithDnf5
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2870
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023, at 8:30 PM, Reon Beon via devel wrote:
> Are there still some outstanding bugs preventing this from happening?
> _______________________________________________
> 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
9:45 p.m.
Thanks. Here is the Feodra 29 Milestone for DNF5:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf5/milestone/1
5:06 p.m.
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 8:31 PM Reon Beon via devel
<devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Are there still some outstanding bugs preventing this from happening?
Is there any one critical feature that justifies the update? Avoiding
the requirement of python is... OK, maybe understandable, but I don't
see it as a "must-have" improvement. And better modularity support....
My observation so far is that modularity simply destabilizes systems,
because the authors of the "modularized" tools do not build up the
full suites of likely necessary components. I'm running into that
right now with python310 back in RHEL 8 for ansible, the results are
not pretty.
5:43 p.m.
On 1/28/23 18:06, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 8:31 PM Reon Beon via devel
<devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> Are there still some outstanding bugs preventing this from happening?
Is there any one critical feature that justifies the update? Avoiding
the requirement of python is... OK, maybe understandable, but I don't
see it as a "must-have" improvement. And better modularity support....
My observation so far is that modularity simply destabilizes systems,
because the authors of the "modularized" tools do not build up the
full suites of likely necessary components. I'm running into that
right now with python310 back in RHEL 8 for ansible, the results are
not pretty.
At this point it might be better to just containerize Ansible.
Containers may waste resources and require extra effort to keep
up-to-date, but they *work*, and that is important. They also
*massively* reduce the test burden.
--
Sincerely,
Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers)
5:50 p.m.
New subject: When is it better to just use containers?
On 1/28/23 18:43, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
On 1/28/23 18:06, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 8:31 PM Reon Beon via devel
> <devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>>
>> Are there still some outstanding bugs preventing this from happening?
>
> Is there any one critical feature that justifies the update? Avoiding
> the requirement of python is... OK, maybe understandable, but I don't
> see it as a "must-have" improvement. And better modularity support....
> My observation so far is that modularity simply destabilizes systems,
> because the authors of the "modularized" tools do not build up the
> full suites of likely necessary components. I'm running into that
> right now with python310 back in RHEL 8 for ansible, the results are
> not pretty.
At this point it might be better to just containerize Ansible.
Containers may waste resources and require extra effort to keep
up-to-date, but they *work*, and that is important. They also
*massively* reduce the test burden.
To elaborate: if I am an upstream developer for something like Ansible,
my options are either:
1. Ship a whole bunch of packages for a whole bunch of distributions
and make sure everything works across all of the various
dependency versions. This also means that I have to restrict
myself to the packages that e.g. RHEL 8 has, which might be
quite old.
2. Ship a single container that only needs to be QA’d once, works
everywhere, and has no dependencies except for the Linux kernel.
I get to update dependencies when *I* want to, and don’t have
to worry about breaking user’s systems. I can even ship a
shell script wrapper so that the container can be invoked as
a binary.
3. Something that I am not aware of (suggestions welcome).
It’s pretty easy to see why someone would go with option 2.
--
Sincerely,
Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers)
2:21 a.m.
New subject: When is it better to just use containers?
On 1/29/23 00:50, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
2. Ship a single container that only needs to be QA’d once, works
everywhere, and has no dependencies except for the Linux kernel.
I get to update dependencies when *I* want to, and don’t have
to worry about breaking user’s systems. I can even ship a
shell script wrapper so that the container can be invoked as
a binary.
It’s pretty easy to see why someone would go with option 2.
Of course this is better for you, as a developer, but it is bad for
me as a user.
There is a reason why a "distribution" exists, centralized control
of everything with rpm, yum, logrotate, ...
The alternative of having each tool to drag over all its dependencies
means that you have to chase every app upgrade by itself,
you can't fix a security vulnerability affecting 30 apps by just updating
a shared library, and you massively waste resources by having
many minimally different versions of the same library in memory at the
same time. At the end of the day, you have turned Linux into Windows. You are
just missing "update checker" daemons for each app.
Bundling libs and (even worse) static linking (golang, I'm accusing you!)
is in my opinion just a sign of lazy development, and I always try to avoid
applications doing this.
Regards.
--
Roberto Ragusa mail at robertoragusa.it
3:59 a.m.
New subject: When is it better to just use containers?
Dne 30. 01. 23 v 9:21 Roberto Ragusa napsal(a):
> 2. Ship a single container that only needs to be QA’d once,
works
> everywhere, and has no dependencies except for the Linux kernel.
> I get to update dependencies when *I* want to, and don’t have
> to worry about breaking user’s systems. I can even ship a
> shell script wrapper so that the container can be invoked as
> a binary.
> It’s pretty easy to see why someone would go with option 2.
Of course this is better for you, as a developer, but it is bad for
me as a user.
There is a reason why a "distribution" exists, centralized control
of everything with rpm, yum, logrotate, ...
+1
Such decision force me (as a user) to use that container.
And it is a huge a pain to use it on bare metal or in modified container.
You basically shift the burden from developers to users.
Miroslav
6:21 a.m.
New subject: When is it better to just use containers?
On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 06:50:55PM -0500, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
On 1/28/23 18:43, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> On 1/28/23 18:06, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 8:31 PM Reon Beon via devel
>> <devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Are there still some outstanding bugs preventing this from happening?
>>
>> Is there any one critical feature that justifies the update? Avoiding
>> the requirement of python is... OK, maybe understandable, but I don't
>> see it as a "must-have" improvement. And better modularity
support....
>> My observation so far is that modularity simply destabilizes systems,
>> because the authors of the "modularized" tools do not build up the
>> full suites of likely necessary components. I'm running into that
>> right now with python310 back in RHEL 8 for ansible, the results are
>> not pretty.
>
> At this point it might be better to just containerize Ansible.
> Containers may waste resources and require extra effort to keep
> up-to-date, but they *work*, and that is important. They also
> *massively* reduce the test burden.
To elaborate: if I am an upstream developer for something like Ansible,
my options are either:
1. Ship a whole bunch of packages for a whole bunch of distributions
and make sure everything works across all of the various
dependency versions. This also means that I have to restrict
myself to the packages that e.g. RHEL 8 has, which might be
quite old.
This isn't so hard. Keep a RHEL 8 VM around for debugging. Set up
your CI so that you get early warning if something breaks across all
your target systems. Dial back on the neophilia that infects (some)
developers.
This will greatly help out your users.
2. Ship a single container that only needs to be QA’d once, works
everywhere, and has no dependencies except for the Linux kernel.
I get to update dependencies when *I* want to, and don’t have
to worry about breaking user’s systems. I can even ship a
shell script wrapper so that the container can be invoked as
a binary.
You as a developer are in a very tiny minority compared to all your users.
Rich.
3. Something that I am not aware of (suggestions welcome).
It’s pretty easy to see why someone would go with option 2.
--
Sincerely,
Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers)
_______________________________________________
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
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many
powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc.
http://people.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top
503
days inactive
506
days old
9 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Ben Beasley -
Demi Marie Obenour -
Miroslav Suchý -
Nico Kadel-Garcia -
Orion Poplawski -
Reon Beon -
Richard W.M. Jones -
Roberto Ragusa