http://developerblog.redhat.com/2013/09/12/rhscl1-ga/ I know that the devtoolset requires an additional subscribe to get access, but is there a way to make use of it in the Koji build process so that those who are subscribed to the devtoolset can make use of the package that uses it in the EPEL?
Thanks, Dave
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 10:43:50 -0700 Dave Johansen davejohansen@gmail.com wrote:
http://developerblog.redhat.com/2013/09/12/rhscl1-ga/ I know that the devtoolset requires an additional subscribe to get access, but is there a way to make use of it in the Koji build process so that those who are subscribed to the devtoolset can make use of the package that uses it in the EPEL?
EPEL strives to use Fedora packaging guidelines.
from: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#...
"Software Collections (as defined here) are not permitted to be built or enabled in official Fedora packages."
Until there are Fedora guidelines for them, no way EPEL is going to enable them blindly, sorry. ;)
There is work underway to craft guidelines for them, you might look at assisting in that effort and adding needed bits for using them in EPEL too.
kevin
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 10:43:50 -0700 Dave Johansen davejohansen@gmail.com wrote:
http://developerblog.redhat.com/2013/09/12/rhscl1-ga/ I know that the devtoolset requires an additional subscribe to get access, but is there a way to make use of it in the Koji build process so that those who are subscribed to the devtoolset can make use of the package that uses it in the EPEL?
EPEL strives to use Fedora packaging guidelines.
from: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#...
"Software Collections (as defined here) are not permitted to be built or enabled in official Fedora packages."
Until there are Fedora guidelines for them, no way EPEL is going to enable them blindly, sorry. ;)
There is work underway to craft guidelines for them, you might look at assisting in that effort and adding needed bits for using them in EPEL too.
How can I get involved in that process? I would definitely like to help out with enabling the support for them in the EPEL.
Thanks, Dave
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 20:32:41 -0700 Dave Johansen davejohansen@gmail.com wrote:
How can I get involved in that process? I would definitely like to help out with enabling the support for them in the EPEL.
Join the packaging list and see this post just today: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2013-September/009525.ht...
kevin
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 20:32:41 -0700 Dave Johansen davejohansen@gmail.com wrote:
How can I get involved in that process? I would definitely like to help out with enabling the support for them in the EPEL.
Join the packaging list and see this post just today:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2013-September/009525.ht...
So after a little discussion on the packaging list, it was decided that this is the right place to have the conversation ( https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2013-September/009554.ht...).
I think part of the confusion may have come because I don't want to package an SCL, but I want to make use of a specific SCL that RedHat has created. The discussion going on in the packaging mailing list is about the guidelines for how to create SCLs, so my request isn't really pertinent there. Anyway, I'll try to describe the situation a little better.
There are two parts of ODB: 1) the compiler and 2) the runtime. The compiler takes an input and generates C++ code that can be built against and used with the runtime. The generated code and the runtime can be used with gcc 4.2 or greater.
The issue is that ODB requires gcc's plugin support ( http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/plugins ) to parse the input. Plugin support was added in gcc 4.5 and only gcc 4.4 is available on RHEL 5/6. The devtoolset makes a newer version available, which enables the use of the compiler and not just the runtime.
Part of the confusion may also come from the fact that the binaries generated by devtoolset are standalone and can be run on vanilla installs of RHEL 5/6 (i.e. without the devtoolset installed). So generally the devtoolset is only needed during build time, but since the ODB compiler is a plugin for gcc, the devtoolset is required for it's use when generated code for use with the runtime.
In summary, the devtoolset requires the appropriate subscription from RH, but that is the point of my request. I would like to request that devtoolset be made available on Koji so it can be used to build certain packages. The idea is that then it will build the rpm on the server and it will be available in the EPEL (but not the devtoolset itself). This means that anyone who would want to use this package would need to have the devtoolset installed, so it doesn't violate any of the RH/EPEL policies, but would enable the use of the devtoolset with the EPEL.
Thanks, Dave
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Dave Johansen davejohansen@gmail.com wrote:
Part of the confusion may also come from the fact that the binaries generated by devtoolset are standalone and can be run on vanilla installs of RHEL 5/6 (i.e. without the devtoolset installed). So generally the devtoolset is only needed during build time, but since the ODB compiler is a plugin for gcc, the devtoolset is required for it's use when generated code for use with the runtime.
In summary, the devtoolset requires the appropriate subscription from RH, but that is the point of my request. I would like to request that devtoolset be made available on Koji so it can be used to build certain packages. The idea is that then it will build the rpm on the server and it will be available in the EPEL (but not the devtoolset itself). This means that anyone who would want to use this package would need to have the devtoolset installed, so it doesn't violate any of the RH/EPEL policies, but would enable the use of the devtoolset with the EPEL.
As you indicated in the other thread, the devtoolset channel is only included in developer RHEL subscriptions. I'd presume the vast majority of EPEL consumers have server-type subscriptions, so they wouldn't have access to it, correct?
That kind of sucks—there would be packages in EPEL that would have broken deps for a lot of EPEL users and no real way of indicating to those users what the problem is. :-(
What about CentOS and Scientific Linux? These are 100% fully supported targets for EPEL [1] and cannot be ignored. If they have no access to it, it shouldn't be used in EPEL. On the other hand, if most of those users have access to the necessary dependencies, it might lessen the severity of lack of access to bona fide RHEL users in some peoples' eyes.
In general, it seems your package is much more suited for a fedorapeople repo or similar. It doesn't seem to be generally useful to the vast majority of EPEL consumers, just to users with a very limited set of RHEL subscriptions. What's the point of making something available in EPEL if the vast majority of EPEL users can't use it?
-T.C.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ#Are_EPEL_packages_available_only_for...
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 8:44 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth < tchollingsworth@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Dave Johansen davejohansen@gmail.com wrote:
Part of the confusion may also come from the fact that the binaries generated by devtoolset are standalone and can be run on vanilla
installs of
RHEL 5/6 (i.e. without the devtoolset installed). So generally the devtoolset is only needed during build time, but since the ODB compiler
is a
plugin for gcc, the devtoolset is required for it's use when generated
code
for use with the runtime.
In summary, the devtoolset requires the appropriate subscription from RH, but that is the point of my request. I would like to request that
devtoolset
be made available on Koji so it can be used to build certain packages.
The
idea is that then it will build the rpm on the server and it will be available in the EPEL (but not the devtoolset itself). This means that anyone who would want to use this package would need to have the
devtoolset
installed, so it doesn't violate any of the RH/EPEL policies, but would enable the use of the devtoolset with the EPEL.
As you indicated in the other thread, the devtoolset channel is only included in developer RHEL subscriptions. I'd presume the vast majority of EPEL consumers have server-type subscriptions, so they wouldn't have access to it, correct?
That kind of sucks—there would be packages in EPEL that would have broken deps for a lot of EPEL users and no real way of indicating to those users what the problem is. :-(
What about CentOS and Scientific Linux? These are 100% fully supported targets for EPEL [1] and cannot be ignored. If they have no access to it, it shouldn't be used in EPEL. On the other hand, if most of those users have access to the necessary dependencies, it might lessen the severity of lack of access to bona fide RHEL users in some peoples' eyes.
There are rebuilds of devtoolset by both the CentOS and Scientific Linux guys. It obviously comes without the support that you get with the RedHat subscription, but it's still an option and is available to anyone (not just the CentOS or Scientific Linux guys). The repos can be found at: http://people.centos.org/tru/devtools-1.1/ http://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/6.4/i386/external_products/d...
In general, it seems your package is much more suited for a fedorapeople repo or similar. It doesn't seem to be generally useful to the vast majority of EPEL consumers, just to users with a very limited set of RHEL subscriptions. What's the point of making something available in EPEL if the vast majority of EPEL users can't use it?
I don't really get this line of reasoning. Is "generally useful" now a requirement to be part of the EPEL? I've always had the understanding that if it's useful to someone on RHEL, they're willing to maintain it, and it makes it through the approval process, then it's ok to include in the EPEL. I recognize that RedHat has made the use of the devtoolset unnecessarily complex because of the additional subscription that's required, but that's why I want to start this discussion. I'd like to help the community figure out how to make use of this very useful tool (the devtoolset) and be able to add to the excellent set of packages that the EPEL already is.
Dave
Some questions for you:
- Is the source available for anyone to download/use? I can't seem to see it off hand on ftp.redhat.com.
- How do you propose handing the difference in lifecycle? SCL is saying 3 years next to RHEL's 10. What happens at those points? Everyone breaks and needs to rebuild anything that uses them?
- I also wonder about CentOS/SL/Other users. Could they use these packages at all?
While EPEL could adopt different rules or setup than Fedora, I don't think our users want us to be making radical changes.
I am also wondering if a side repo on repos.fedorapeople.org or the like would be a better fit for this.
kevin
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com wrote:
Some questions for you:
- Is the source available for anyone to download/use? I can't seem to see it off hand on ftp.redhat.com.
The source rpms can be found at: http://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/linux/enterprise/5Client/en/RHDevToolset/SRPMS/ http://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/linux/enterprise/6Workstation/en/RHDevToolset/S...
- How do you propose handing the difference in lifecycle? SCL is saying 3 years next to RHEL's 10. What happens at those points? Everyone breaks and needs to rebuild anything that uses them?
The details of the life cycle can be found here: https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/dts/
This part is definitely more complex thank I'd like. My initial thought is that ideally the packages would just move to the newer released version of the devtoolset, but there's nothing that would break if they just stayed on the release they were already using. The devtoolset is also a very developer facing package and not used by the general userbase, so it's definitely annoying/frustrating that the life cycle is so short, but probably not quite as big of a deal as it would be with other types of package.
Having said all that, some sort of official policy would need to be in place, but I'm definitely open to ideas/input on this part of it, because I'm still not sure what I think the best solution for this is.
- I also wonder about CentOS/SL/Other users. Could they use these packages at all?
Yes, devtoolset 2.0 was just recently released and still being worked on, but devtoolset 1.1 is available at: http://people.centos.org/tru/devtools-1.1/ http://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/6.4/i386/external_products/d...
While EPEL could adopt different rules or setup than Fedora, I don't think our users want us to be making radical changes.
I am also wondering if a side repo on repos.fedorapeople.org or the like would be a better fit for this.
I understand the concern here and maybe some sort of side repo (EPEL-dt or such) would be the right idea. The reason I'd like to get it as part of the EPEL is that the EPEL has a certain feel of "official" about it since it's sponsored by the Fedora community. I definitely could host the rpms for the ODB compiler myself, but then it doesn't have that same "stamp of approval" that I'm looking for by having it be part of the "standard EL process".
Dave
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org