On 7/13/23 11:52, Demi Marie Obenour wrote: > On 7/13/23 11:32, Fabio Valentini wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 5:25 PM Demi Marie Obenour >> <demioben...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 7/5/23 02:22, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote: >>>> I have submitted a Flock proposal to have a common discussion session for >>>> (modern) Language SIGs. I think for this to be successful we need >>>> representatives from various Language SIGs to be there (Rust, Haskell, >>>> OCaml, Golang and of course Python and older ecosystems like Perl, R, TeX >>>> come to mind immediately - surely there are more). Language packaging >>>> experts are also welcome of course independently or affiliated to one or >>>> more language SIGs. Of course I also hope there will be broad attendance by >>>> interested contributors. >>>> >>>> The idea is to talk about common and distinct problems faced, both to learn >>>> from each other and to come up with practical ideas and plans for generally >>>> easing Fedora's mass packaging efforts. >>>> >>>> If you plan to be at Flock and are willing and able to represent your >>>> Language SIG at this Flock session do please reply or reach out to me. I >>>> think each SIG could do a brief presentation there to kick off the >>>> dialogue. >>>> >>>> Thanks, Jens >>> >>> This could be made much easier if Fedora’s build system supported automated >>> cascading rebuilds of transitive dependencies. Haskell and OCaml are >>> currently >>> linked statically in Fedora, but could be linked dynamically if cascading >>> rebuilds were supported. Rust is likely, IMO, gain improved support for >>> dynamic >>> linking in the future. >>> >>> I am _not_ going to start a debate as to whether requiring cascading >>> rebuilds >>> is a good idea. That requirement comes from Haskell, OCaml, and Rust, not >>> me, >>> and so any complaints should be directed there. This subthread is strictly >>> about changes to Fedora’s build system that make it easier to implement >>> cascading rebuilds. >> >> I'm not sure how often I have to repeat myself, but dynamic linking >> for Rust crates is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Even if the build system >> supported doing this, the average number of updates for Rust crates I >> push every week would keep the build system busy for a month, not even >> mentioning the fact that it would blow up package sizes exponentially >> (yes, *exponentially*, by about a factor of 2^n, with the number n of >> optional features they support). Please stop mentioning Rust in this >> context, it is misleading. >> >> Fabio > > Why is static linking any better? I’m not suggesting building the > Cartesian product of all possible build configurations. That would be > absurd. From my perspective it looks like static linking actually > requires _more_ effort from the builders: they must build everything > for each application that uses it instead of just building it once. > Also if Rust winds up being a significant fraction of the overall system, > the storage requirements of statically linking everything that uses Rust > will be a serious problem.
Is what I am missing that the builders cannot handle rebuilding all of the transitive dependencies whenever a new version of a Rust crate comes out? If so, that means that Fedora is shipping binaries built from old versions of Rust crates. -- Sincerely, Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers) _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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
