Re: In the OpenShift Origin/CRI-O/Kubernetes effort we have a dilemma.

[Jakub Cajka]

----- Original Message -----
>  From: "Nicolas Mailhot"
> <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net&gt;
>  To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
> <devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org&gt;
>  Cc: dwalsh(a)redhat.com, mpatel(a)redhat.com, runcom(a)redhat.com
>  Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 12:46:28 PM
>  Subject: Re: In the OpenShift Origin/CRI-O/Kubernetes effort we have a dilemma.
>  
>  Le vendredi 29 juin 2018 à 12:19 -0400, Lokesh Mandvekar a écrit :
>  > FWIW, a fun read from the debian pkg-go list about packaging docker
>  > https://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]
>  > t/msg00032.html
>  
>  And so what? I hit this problem months ago (and I have the github
>  tickets to prove it, with the Debian maintainers me-too-ing a few weeks
>  later). And some of those have been fixed since thanks to the reporting.
>  
>  The problem is not this message, that's upstream software needing
>  fixing, we handle tons of those in Fedora all year round, the problem is
>  that you seem to find normal *others* identified it, you seem to find
>  normal *not* *involving* yourself in the reporting and the fixing, you
>  seem to find normal functioning in some sort of fourth dimension where
>  FLOSS community fixing and collaborating happens to someone else.
>  
>  Go upstream state is a hard problem. But it needs to be solved because
>  no matter how you look at it there is a ton of go software that wants to
>  integrate with either kubernetes or docker. Stuff that is usually
>  *useful* for container users BTW. Stuff *you* could pull on for future
>  openshift enhancements if you made a minimum effort to nurture its
>  packaging in Fedora.
>  
>  Making temporary exceptions for bits of bundling because they're too
>  broken to integrate right now is one thing. Passing on entirely and
>  letting the whole thing rot for years is something else entirely.
>  
>  There is maybe 95% of Go packages that kubernetes need that present no
>  technical challenge to package as rpm and use as rpm (some of this code
>  has not been changed upstream for years!). The 5% remaining problem
>  stuff could be bundled and then chipped at years after year till it's
>  not a problem anymore. It *needs* chipping at to improve the codebase
>  and the maintainability of it all.
>  
>  But you use this 5% as the reason not to play the game at all.
>  
>  Why ? 
Menpower? Do you know how many active packagers are in Go part of Fedora? In my experience
there is less than 10, more like 5 or less for like ~600 packages.

For the record what you find as "new and surprising" we(me and jchaloup) have
discovered roughly over 2y ago and have been working(mostly Jan, guidelines and gofed) on
resolving it in Fedora in our spare time. Can I read your e-mail in a way that you are
volunteering to commit for full time ground work on de-bundling and stabilizing the Go
world(in Fedora)? We will be excited to guide you through as anyone else interested. 

I would be really happy to see you all at flock so we can discuss it and work on
solutions, especially if you are interested in actually working on fixing it not only
discussing it. I think it would be cool if we would be able to start Fedora's Go SIG
there and start systematically addressing the issues.

JC

PS: I have opened talk proposal at flock https://pagure.io/flock/issue/24(co-speakers are
welcomed), but I would love to meet there even if it won't make it.

> 
> --
> Nicolas Mailhot
> _______________________________________________
> 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://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
>
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail].o...
>