10:48 a.m.
I've been talking with some of the SuSE guys and we agree there's some
overlap or at least coordination between their buildsystem and ours. The
first obvious low hanging fruit is common macros. For those who wonder
"why would we help OpenSuSE?" the answer is common goals, and better user
experiences.
The problem is time and coordination. So on a whim I thought I'd send
this email out. Do we have any contributors out there who are both
members of Fedora and SuSE who would be willing to lead this charge, find
similarities and places for coordination?
-Mike
11 a.m.
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008, Mike McGrath wrote:
I've been talking with some of the SuSE guys and we agree
there's some
overlap or at least coordination between their buildsystem and ours. The
first obvious low hanging fruit is common macros. For those who wonder
"why would we help OpenSuSE?" the answer is common goals, and better user
experiences.
You sure about there being much overlap and thus a certain incentive to
develop common macros?
The last time I was paid to look at SuSE was around 2003 or so and back
then there was not much common except the .spec suffix.
BuildRequires weren't used at all (admittedly, Red Hat was rather frugal
wrt BRs) and I haven't seen much use of %macros at all.
AFAICS BuildRequirements were implemented by parsing #-commented lines and
adding the named packages to the dependency list.
Has this behaviour changed?
On the other hand: Is the buildsystem the right place to work on common
goals? I'd assume that specifically for macros, rpm.org is a better place.
regards,
andreas
11:06 a.m.
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008, Andreas Thienemann wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008, Mike McGrath wrote:
> I've been talking with some of the SuSE guys and we agree there's some
> overlap or at least coordination between their buildsystem and ours. The
> first obvious low hanging fruit is common macros. For those who wonder
> "why would we help OpenSuSE?" the answer is common goals, and better
user
> experiences.
You sure about there being much overlap and thus a certain incentive to
develop common macros?
The last time I was paid to look at SuSE was around 2003 or so and back
then there was not much common except the .spec suffix.
BuildRequires weren't used at all (admittedly, Red Hat was rather frugal
wrt BRs) and I haven't seen much use of %macros at all.
AFAICS BuildRequirements were implemented by parsing #-commented lines and
adding the named packages to the dependency list.
Has this behaviour changed?
Don't know, we'll need someone committed to look at issues like this.
On the other hand: Is the buildsystem the right place to work on
common
goals? I'd assume that specifically for macros, rpm.org is a better place.
Possibly but we don't have any control over rpm.org, we do, however, have
control over our buildsystems.
-Mike
11:45 a.m.
On Tuesday 16 December 2008 10:48:48 am Mike McGrath wrote:
I've been talking with some of the SuSE guys and we agree
there's some
overlap or at least coordination between their buildsystem and ours. The
first obvious low hanging fruit is common macros. For those who wonder
"why would we help OpenSuSE?" the answer is common goals, and better user
experiences.
The problem is time and coordination. So on a whim I thought I'd send
this email out. Do we have any contributors out there who are both
members of Fedora and SuSE who would be willing to lead this charge, find
similarities and places for coordination?
I think that common macros needs to be solved at rpm.org level. not a
buildsystem level. koji has no say in any of the macros it uses what is
defined inside the distro. the macros fedora uses are defined in rpm and redhat-
rpm-config, the disttag macro is defined in fedora-release.
I see great benefit to everyone by having that problem solved at the rpm.org
level. it will make it much easier to pickup packages and fixes cross distro.
that is not a bad thing. especially for ISV's and upstreams supporting all
distros they only need to do the work once and build everywhere.
Working directly with them to fix issues for there buildsystem however I feel
causes some conflicts. namely it legitimises the use of there buildsystem for
building fedora/RHEL packages. I know people use it and will continue to do
so. but I would ask why? is there some service that fedora could provide and
is not? is it because you can be lazy and sloppy in the packaging and it lets
you? is it just being able to do it in a single place?
We do need to get out of the business of running two buildsystems. we really
do need to be able to build EPEL in koji. I have scheduled a koji hackfest
for fudcon. so if your there and interested then come help. there is always
#koji on freenode for discussion on koji, so if you cant make it in person
you can be there virtually :)
Dennis
3:56 p.m.
New subject: EPEL and koji (was Re: OpenSuSE Buildsystem)
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 11:45:19AM -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
We do need to get out of the business of running two buildsystems. we really
do need to be able to build EPEL in koji. I have scheduled a koji hackfest
for fudcon. so if your there and interested then come help. there is always
#koji on freenode for discussion on koji, so if you cant make it in person
you can be there virtually :)
Is there somewhere I can get an overview of the challenge and process
of moving EPEL to koji? If not, can we take some time and write up
such a thing?
- Karsten
--
Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener
http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
AD0E0C41
4 p.m.
New subject: EPEL and koji (was Re: OpenSuSE Buildsystem)
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008, Karsten Wade wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 11:45:19AM -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>
> We do need to get out of the business of running two buildsystems. we really
> do need to be able to build EPEL in koji. I have scheduled a koji hackfest
> for fudcon. so if your there and interested then come help. there is always
> #koji on freenode for discussion on koji, so if you cant make it in person
> you can be there virtually :)
Is there somewhere I can get an overview of the challenge and process
of moving EPEL to koji? If not, can we take some time and write up
such a thing?
https://fedorahosted.org/koji/ticket/49
-Mike
12:12 p.m.
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:48:48AM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
I've been talking with some of the SuSE guys and we agree
there's some
overlap or at least coordination between their buildsystem and ours. The
first obvious low hanging fruit is common macros. For those who wonder
"why would we help OpenSuSE?" the answer is common goals, and better user
experiences.
The problem is time and coordination. So on a whim I thought I'd send
this email out. Do we have any contributors out there who are both
members of Fedora and SuSE who would be willing to lead this charge, find
similarities and places for coordination?
The best places for Fedora and openSUSE to collaborate are in the
upstream communities where we can have the best effect on the free
software community. That means rpm.org, smolts.org, GNOME,
freedesktop.org, KDE, and so on. There's fertile ground there for
plenty of technical development, and I feel that's the place where
Fedora should be putting resources.
--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
6:38 p.m.
On Tue December 16 2008, Mike McGrath wrote:
The problem is time and coordination. So on a whim I thought I'd
send
this email out. Do we have any contributors out there who are both
members of Fedora and SuSE who would be willing to lead this charge, find
similarities and places for coordination?
There exists already a project to coordinate between even more distributions:
http://distributions.freedesktop.org/wiki/
There was also already a first reachout to unify packaging guidelines:
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/distributions/2008-March/000100.html
But there is not much activity.
Regards,
Till
5607
days inactive
5609
days old
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
7 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Andreas Thienemann -
Dennis Gilmore -
Karsten Wade -
Mike McGrath -
Paul W. Frields -
Till Maas