sway 1.5 + wlroots 0.11 update

[Aleksei Bavshin]

Hi all,



There are two PRs with wlroots and sway update:

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wlroots/pull-request/10

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sway/pull-request/9



A few things we'd want to deal with before merging and building those:

1) Wlroots update breaks API/ABI and all dependent packages should be fixed and rebuilt.


1.a) I already contacted wayfire upstream in IRC and Ilia said that they are thinking to
publish a new 0.5.0 release in <= 2 weeks.

Meanwhile I have a patch[2] (4 commits from git + meson.build update) which works right
now. My testing was limited to starting wayfire with default config and clicking random
buttons, but it looks like FreeBSD maintainer picked the same changes for their port.

I can send a PR with the patch but it's a wayfire maintainer's decision whether to
accept it or wait until the new upstream release.



1.b) For phoc, there's a WIP merge request[1] with update to the latest wlroots API.
It would be awesome if someone of phoc maintainers could test the patched build and
contact the upstream regarding the status of the merge request.



For everyone's convenience, I prepared a copr repo with updated wlroots, sway, wayfire
and phoc[3].

--
Now onto less important stuff.

2) F31 module update.
Wlroots 0.11.0 requires wayland >= 1.18, but f31 has only 1.17.
The (draft) policy for modularity[4] states that 'The module maintainer MUST have
explicit commit privileges to all packages included in the module stream'.
In essence that means we are not supposed to add `wayland` to the module. Also that means
that if we don't convince wayland maintainer to update the package, we'll have to
stop builds for f31.

3) F32 update.
Considering that
a) there are packages in f32 that would fail to install with sway module enabled,
b) users are mostly unaware that we have the module and will resort to unofficial coprs
(as observed multiple times on /r/Fedora),
I'd like to see things updated in f32 non-modular. However with the involvement of
other packages this might be troublesome.
Is there any interest in f32 updates from other Sway SIG members and Mobility SIG
(phoc/phosh owners)?


[1] https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/phoc/-/merge_requests/153
[2] https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/alebastr/rpms/wayfire/c/adb25640
[3] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/alebastr/sway-testing/

[4] https://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/docs/modularity/modularity/policies/


-- 
With best regards,
Aleksei Bavshin

[Till Hofmann]

Hi Aleksei,

Thanks for the great work on the updates and the precise summary!

On 7/16/20 8:09 PM, Aleksei Bavshin wrote:
>  Hi all,
>  
>  
>  
>  There are two PRs with wlroots and sway update:
>  
>  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wlroots/pull-request/10
>  
>  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sway/pull-request/9
>  
>  
>  
>  A few things we'd want to deal with before merging and building those:
>  
>  1) Wlroots update breaks API/ABI and all dependent packages should be fixed and rebuilt.
>  
>  
>  1.a) I already contacted wayfire upstream in IRC and Ilia said that they are thinking to
> publish a new 0.5.0 release in <= 2 weeks.
>  
>  Meanwhile I have a patch[2] (4 commits from git + meson.build update) which works right
> now. My testing was limited to starting wayfire with default config and clicking random
> buttons, but it looks like FreeBSD maintainer picked the same changes for their port.
>  
>  I can send a PR with the patch but it's a wayfire maintainer's decision whether
> to accept it or wait until the new upstream release. 
I think sending the patch is a good idea! In addition to that, we should
follow the process (e.g., announce update 7 days in advance):
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/#_rawhide_devel...

I would suggest the following:
1. Create PRs on dependent packages
2. At the same time, announce on devel and to all maintainers of the
dependencies
3. 7 days later, build wlroots + sway. Some dependent packages may go
FTBFS, but with PRs fixing those, so I don't see a problem.

>  
>  
>  
>  1.b) For phoc, there's a WIP merge request[1] with update to the latest wlroots API.
> It would be awesome if someone of phoc maintainers could test the patched build and
> contact the upstream regarding the status of the merge request.
>  
>  
>  
>  For everyone's convenience, I prepared a copr repo with updated wlroots, sway,
> wayfire and phoc[3].
>  
>  --
>  Now onto less important stuff.
>  
>  2) F31 module update.
>  Wlroots 0.11.0 requires wayland >= 1.18, but f31 has only 1.17.
>  The (draft) policy for modularity[4] states that 'The module maintainer MUST have
> explicit commit privileges to all packages included in the module stream'.
>  In essence that means we are not supposed to add `wayland` to the module. Also that means
> that if we don't convince wayland maintainer to update the package, we'll have to
> stop builds for f31. 
We may also think about retiring the module. The primary purpose of the
module (from my perspective) was to get sway 1.0 on stable releases (I
think it was F30). I don't use the module anymore, and modularity in
general is not very popular.

I don't actually know how to retire a module, but if everyone agrees, I
can start the process. If you think the module is still useful, I'd
welcome any help :)

>  
>  3) F32 update.
>  Considering that
>  a) there are packages in f32 that would fail to install with sway module enabled,
>  b) users are mostly unaware that we have the module and will resort to unofficial coprs
> (as observed multiple times on /r/Fedora),
>  I'd like to see things updated in f32 non-modular. However with the involvement of
> other packages this might be troublesome.
>  Is there any interest in f32 updates from other Sway SIG members and Mobility SIG
> (phoc/phosh owners)? 
IMO F32 should not be updated. ABI changes are strongly discouraged in
stable releases:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/#philosophy

Kind regards,
Till


> 
> 
> [1] https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/phoc/-/merge_requests/153
> [2] https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/alebastr/rpms/wayfire/c/adb25640
> [3] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/alebastr/sway-testing/
> 
> [4] https://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/docs/modularity/modularity/policies/
> 
>

[Dan Čermák]

Till Hofmann <thofmann(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; writes:

> > 2) F31 module update.
> > Wlroots 0.11.0 requires wayland >= 1.18, but f31 has only 1.17.
> > The (draft) policy for modularity[4] states that 'The module maintainer MUST have
> explicit commit privileges to all packages included in the module stream'.
> > In essence that means we are not supposed to add `wayland` to the module. Also that
> means that if we don't convince wayland maintainer to update the package, we'll
> have to stop builds for f31.
>
>  We may also think about retiring the module. The primary purpose of the
>  module (from my perspective) was to get sway 1.0 on stable releases (I
>  think it was F30). I don't use the module anymore, and modularity in
>  general is not very popular.
>
>  I don't actually know how to retire a module, but if everyone agrees, I
>  can start the process. If you think the module is still useful, I'd
>  welcome any help :) 
I don't think that it is really possible to retire a module... You can
stop maintaining it, but afaik there is no clean upgrade path from
modular to non-modular packages :-(
(I hope that I'm wrong, but I'm afraid it's not the case.)

Also, I'd say that the module would be definitely useful to get an up to
date sway to the stable releases, but given it's low popularity I'm not
sure if it's worth the effort.


Cheers,

Dan

[Aleksei Bavshin]

Hi Till,

On 7/16/20 1:37 PM, Till Hofmann wrote:
>  I think sending the patch is a good idea! In addition to that, we
> should
>  follow the process (e.g., announce update 7 days in advance):
>  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/#_rawhide_devel...
>  
>  I would suggest the following:
>  1. Create PRs on dependent packages
>  2. At the same time, announce on devel and to all maintainers of the
>  dependencies
>  3. 7 days later, build wlroots + sway. Some dependent packages may go
>  FTBFS, but with PRs fixing those, so I don't see a problem. 
Then I'll
proceed with that in a few hours, once my working day ends.


>  We may also think about retiring the module. The primary purpose of
> the
>  module (from my perspective) was to get sway 1.0 on stable releases (I
>  think it was F30). I don't use the module anymore, and modularity in
>  general is not very popular.
>  
>  I don't actually know how to retire a module, but if everyone agrees, I
>  can start the process. If you think the module is still useful, I'd
>  welcome any help :) 
 
>  IMO F32 should not be updated. ABI changes are strongly discouraged
> in
>  stable releases:
>  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/#philosophy 
I'd argue that we need to have at least one supported way of getting sway 1.5
in the stable Fedora.
With the amount of crash fixes (dear old C, safe and reliable) and bugfixes,
the fact that wayvnc only becomes usable in 1.5 and addition of IME support,
it's a very nice to have release.

I guess that means I should look further into the modularity documentation.
Would be happy to help with that.
We could start by removing things from sway module that no longer have to be there
(most of utilities, wayland-protocols, ...) and figuring out what happens if
the installed package is removed from module. With my experience with modules I
expect nothing good :)

-- 
With best regards,
Aleksei Bavshin

[Aleksei Bavshin]

On 7/16/20 2:24 PM, Aleksei Bavshin wrote:
>  Hi Till,
>  
>  On 7/16/20 1:37 PM, Till Hofmann wrote:
> > I think sending the patch is a good idea! In addition to that, we should
> > follow the process (e.g., announce update 7 days in advance):
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/#_rawhide_devel...
> >
> > I would suggest the following:
> > 1. Create PRs on dependent packages
> > 2. At the same time, announce on devel and to all maintainers of the
> > dependencies
> > 3. 7 days later, build wlroots + sway. Some dependent packages may go
> > FTBFS, but with PRs fixing those, so I don't see a problem.
>  Then I'll proceed with that in a few hours, once my working day ends.
>  
>  
> > We may also think about retiring the module. The primary purpose of the
> > module (from my perspective) was to get sway 1.0 on stable releases (I
> > think it was F30). I don't use the module anymore, and modularity in
> > general is not very popular.
> >
> > I don't actually know how to retire a module, but if everyone agrees, I
> > can start the process. If you think the module is still useful, I'd
> > welcome any help :)
>   
> > IMO F32 should not be updated. ABI changes are strongly discouraged in
> > stable releases:
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/#philosophy
>  
>  I'd argue that we need to have at least one supported way of getting sway 1.5
>  in the stable Fedora.
>  With the amount of crash fixes (dear old C, safe and reliable) and bugfixes,
>  the fact that wayvnc only becomes usable in 1.5 and addition of IME support,
>  it's a very nice to have release.
>  
>  I guess that means I should look further into the modularity documentation.
>  Would be happy to help with that.
>  We could start by removing things from sway module that no longer have to be there
>  (most of utilities, wayland-protocols, ...) and figuring out what happens if
>  the installed package is removed from module. With my experience with modules I
>  expect nothing good :) 
As my thread on devel@ has shown, we don't have a lot of options
regarding the module.
It stays until the way to get rid of it is implemented :)

As for current situation, I believe we should do a 2 step update for the
module.
1. Push all accumulated updates to all branches including f31 (and make
sure that `mako` is built from the right branch. rolling is no longer up
to date with master).
2. Submit my PRs, disable f31 in the module and publish another update
for f32+.

Since it's not required to have a rawhide build for the module build, 2
is not limited by the dates in wlroots update announcement and could be
done as soon as today.

-- 
With best regards,
Aleksei Bavshin