sorry for top-post, but one more thing to consider, if caching would be
used, are secondary arches - how it would affect their ability to build
the buildroots
Dan
On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 11:07:53 -0600
Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 03:44:10 +
Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
that all being said. koji doesn't use any caching and will
not use the lvm plugin. we make every buildroot from
scratch using a fully clean environment to
On 15.1.2015 23:13, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
2015-01-15 20:18 GMT+01:00 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com:
On 01/15/2015 04:20 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 01/14/2015 03:10 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
On 01/12/2015 06:08 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dear Fedora developers,
I'd like to collect
W dniu 16.01.2015 o 09:35, Petr Spacek pisze:
Another advantage could be mass-rebuild simplification. Maybe we could save
machine and man-time by not rebuilding noarch packages because of gcc rebase
or something like that.
GCC change may affect binaries which will generate other output which
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Marcin Juszkiewicz
mjuszkiew...@redhat.com wrote:
GCC change may affect binaries which will generate other output which
will change noarch packages.
It shouldn't change a program's behavior, unless the program itself is
relying on undefined behavior. Either way
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 11:19:13AM +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Marcin Juszkiewicz
mjuszkiew...@redhat.com wrote:
GCC change may affect binaries which will generate other output which
will change noarch packages.
It shouldn't change a program's
On 01/14/2015 04:00 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On 01/13/2015 06:01 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
that all being said. koji doesn't use any caching and will not use
the lvm plugin. we make every buildroot from scratch using a fully
clean environment to help with ensuring reproducability.
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 14:53:36 +0100
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl wrote:
Agreed. In principle, any package could affect the build of any other
package (e.g. bash version could realistically influence build
results), but we ignore this. As you say, something like this would
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 17:18:17 +0100
Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/14/2015 04:00 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On 01/13/2015 06:01 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
that all being said. koji doesn't use any caching and will
not use the
that all being said. koji doesn't use any caching and will
not use the lvm plugin. we make every buildroot from scratch
using a fully clean environment to help with ensuring
reproducability.
You can cache and still preserve reproducability. What I'm
planning for Copr is to
Vít Ondruch wrote:
And somebody might be interested what is the trend:
= F21
[snip]
7320
[snip]
= F20
[snip]
6856
[snip]
= F19
[snip]
6609
[snip]
= F18
[snip]
6288
One can see that the number of compiled packages is actually INCREASING.
It's just that the number of scripted packages
On 01/15/2015 04:20 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 01/14/2015 03:10 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
On 01/12/2015 06:08 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dear Fedora developers,
I'd like to collect some feedback about the $SUBJECT, i.e. making
minimal build root really minimal, explicitly specifying build
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 11:13:17PM +0100, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
Another case about the default buildroot is compiler version, one could
rely on a newer gcc (such as with a gcc5 package) and rebuild any packages
with this new buildroot environment without tweaking any sources packages.
But you
2015-01-15 20:18 GMT+01:00 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com:
On 01/15/2015 04:20 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 01/14/2015 03:10 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
On 01/12/2015 06:08 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dear Fedora developers,
I'd like to collect some feedback about the $SUBJECT, i.e.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com wrote:
Dear Fedora developers,
Hi,
I'd like to collect some feedback about the $SUBJECT, i.e. making
minimal build root really minimal, explicitly specifying build
dependencies, etc.
I agree with removing this, but we need some
On 01/14/2015 03:10 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
On 01/12/2015 06:08 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dear Fedora developers,
I'd like to collect some feedback about the $SUBJECT, i.e. making
minimal build root really minimal, explicitly specifying build
dependencies, etc.
Would it be technically
On 01/14/2015 04:38 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
And it seems that this is the number of packages written in C++:
$ repoquery --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=rawhide --source --whatrequires
'libstdc++.so.6*' | sort -u | sed -r 's/(.*)-.*-.*/\1/' | uniq | wc -l
2396
I'd like to point out at this place,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 14:57:59 +0100
Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/13/2015 06:01 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
that all being said. koji doesn't use any caching and will not use
the lvm plugin. we make every buildroot from scratch
Hi,
I don't think the original question was all that great. If we were to
script the change to add the BRs, it would take time but it would
mostly be a one-time cost. Reducing buildroot time creation, network
bandwidth, and storage savings is a reduction over each new buildroot
instance
On 01/13/2015 06:01 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
that all being said. koji doesn't use any caching and will not use the
lvm plugin. we make every buildroot from scratch using a fully clean
environment to help with ensuring reproducability.
You can cache and still preserve reproducability. What
Dne 13.1.2015 v 18:20 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Dne 13.1.2015 v 18:09 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Dne 13.1.2015 v 17:54 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
So lets try to find what is written in C/C++ by some different way. Is
that true, that every package in C/C++ compiled using gcc depends on
glibc? Then we can
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 04:26:00PM -0500, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
(Incidentally, this would be much less of a problem if we had a way
to add all the needed BuildRequires: automatically, and actually did
that. But the mere presence of these BuildRequires: in spec files
would still be accidental
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 12:45:39AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 04:26:00PM -0500, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
(Incidentally, this would be much less of a problem if we had a way
to add all the needed BuildRequires: automatically, and actually did
that. But the mere
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 19:10:43 -0700
Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com wrote:
On 01/12/2015 06:08 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dear Fedora developers,
I'd like to collect some feedback about the $SUBJECT, i.e. making
minimal build root really
- Original Message -
From: Marian Csontos mcson...@redhat.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 7:52:07 PM
Subject: Re: Remove gcc, gcc-c++ and make from minimal build root
On 01/13/2015 06:46 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 13.1.2015 v 18:20 Vít
Dne 13.1.2015 v 18:20 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Dne 13.1.2015 v 18:09 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Dne 13.1.2015 v 17:54 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
So lets try to find what is written in C/C++ by some different way. Is
that true, that every package in C/C++ compiled using gcc depends on
glibc? Then we can
On 01/13/2015 06:53 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Marian Csontos mcson...@redhat.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 7:52:07 PM
Subject: Re: Remove gcc, gcc-c++ and make from minimal build root
On 01/13/2015 06:46 PM, Vít
Dne 13.1.2015 v 17:54 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
So lets try to find what is written in C/C++ by some different way. Is
that true, that every package in C/C++ compiled using gcc depends on
glibc? Then we can use this query to get the number of packages:
$ repoquery --source --whatrequires
Dne 13.1.2015 v 18:09 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Dne 13.1.2015 v 17:54 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
So lets try to find what is written in C/C++ by some different way. Is
that true, that every package in C/C++ compiled using gcc depends on
glibc? Then we can use this query to get the number of packages:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 17:54:03 +0100
Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com wrote:
Dne 13.1.2015 v 17:42 Ralf Corsepius napsal(a):
On 01/13/2015 12:06 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 13.1.2015 v 08:12 Ralf Corsepius napsal(a):
So we are even not able to
On 01/13/2015 06:46 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 13.1.2015 v 18:20 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Dne 13.1.2015 v 18:09 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Dne 13.1.2015 v 17:54 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
So lets try to find what is written in C/C++ by some different way. Is
that true, that every package in C/C++
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dne 13.1.2015 v 18:01 Dennis Gilmore napsal(a):
lets get some
concrete data to look at.
So please, is there any chance to get similar data from Koji? You are
probably the best person who could provide something similar to my tests.
Thanks
Vít
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 7:35 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at
wrote:
Vít Ondruch wrote:
I'd like to collect some feedback about the $SUBJECT, i.e. making
minimal build root really minimal, explicitly specifying build
dependencies, etc.
-1, all the serious software requires gcc,
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com
wrote:
On 01/12/2015 02:08 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dear Fedora developers,
I'd like to collect some feedback about the $SUBJECT, i.e. making
minimal build root really minimal, explicitly specifying build
dependencies,
On 01/12/2015 06:08 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dear Fedora developers,
I'd like to collect some feedback about the $SUBJECT, i.e. making
minimal build root really minimal, explicitly specifying build
dependencies, etc.
Would it be technically feasible to have a different buildroot for arch
and
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:32:09AM -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
Of the 7742 that are arch specific, we do not know how many need to
have gcc or gcc-c++ installed in the buildroot for them to compile.
though we could likely look at the BuildRequires and make an educated
guess.
Dne 13.1.2015 v 14:02 Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a):
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 01:31:06PM +0100, Sven Lankes wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 12:16:42PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
That's simply an idiotic thing to say. What is the progress involved
in adding a new BR to thousands of
Dne 13.1.2015 v 08:12 Ralf Corsepius napsal(a):
On 01/13/2015 07:12 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
On Tue 13 Jan 2015 01:35:26 AM CET Kevin Kofler wrote:
Vít Ondruch wrote:
I'd like to collect some feedback about the $SUBJECT, i.e. making
minimal build root really minimal, explicitly
The arguments on change the compiler not near enough is damn failed as well.
LLVM and now clang are growing towards a been a standard soon for many
applications.
Helio
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 02:38:44PM +0100,
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 02:38:44PM +0100, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
On 01/12/2015 02:30 PM, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
W dniu 12.01.2015 o 14:08, Vít Ondruch pisze:
I'd like to collect some feedback about the $SUBJECT, i.e. making
minimal build root really minimal, explicitly specifying
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 12:16:42PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
That's simply an idiotic thing to say. What is the progress involved
in adding a new BR to thousands of packages?
Am I wrong assuming that it would be rather easy to add the BR to all
packages semi-automatically previous to a
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 01:31:06PM +0100, Sven Lankes wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 12:16:42PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
That's simply an idiotic thing to say. What is the progress involved
in adding a new BR to thousands of packages?
Am I wrong assuming that it would be rather
Forgot to add this was measured on my Lenovo T440s, with SSD and 12 GB
RAM, running F21 with mock 1.2.3, configured to use LVM plugin and DNF
(see attached config files). And network? Who knows, probably fast.
Should be 1Gb/s if I am not mistaken.
Not sure how similar/different the tests could
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com wrote:
Dne 13.1.2015 v 14:02 Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a):
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 01:31:06PM +0100, Sven Lankes wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 12:16:42PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
That's simply an idiotic thing to say.
You can interpret these data yourself, but with less packages in build root,
I can see:
1) Saved build time
2) Saved network bandwidth
3) Saved storage
4) Less things to break
Just to make sure I'm reading the data correctly, your tests show a
maximum approximate savings of 20 seconds
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com wrote:
Dear Fedora developers,
I'd like to collect some feedback about the $SUBJECT, i.e. making
minimal build root really minimal, explicitly specifying build
dependencies, etc.
Hi,
I think this is a good idea, because
Dne 13.1.2015 v 16:35 Peter Robinson napsal(a):
You can interpret these data yourself, but with less packages in build root,
I can see:
1) Saved build time
2) Saved network bandwidth
3) Saved storage
4) Less things to break
Just to make sure I'm reading the data correctly, your tests show
On 01/13/2015 12:06 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 13.1.2015 v 08:12 Ralf Corsepius napsal(a):
So we are even not able to tell how many packages are written in C or
C++ in Fedora, since we do not have the BuildRequires speficied
correctly.
Correct.
Because we have still the false feeling that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 14:08:24 +0100
Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com wrote:
Dear Fedora developers,
I'd like to collect some feedback about the $SUBJECT, i.e. making
minimal build root really minimal, explicitly specifying build
dependencies,
Dne 13.1.2015 v 17:42 Ralf Corsepius napsal(a):
On 01/13/2015 12:06 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 13.1.2015 v 08:12 Ralf Corsepius napsal(a):
So we are even not able to tell how many packages are written in C or
C++ in Fedora, since we do not have the BuildRequires speficied
correctly.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:28:36 -0500
Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com
wrote:
Dne 13.1.2015 v 14:02 Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a):
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 01:31:06PM
On Tue 13 Jan 2015 01:35:26 AM CET Kevin Kofler wrote:
I actually think that cmake should be added to the minimal build root,
instead of removing stuff. Almost all the packages I work on BuildRequire
cmake (which also implies that they need make to build, and gcc-c++ is the
typical
Dne 13.1.2015 v 08:12 Ralf Corsepius napsal(a):
On 01/13/2015 07:12 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
On Tue 13 Jan 2015 01:35:26 AM CET Kevin Kofler wrote:
Vít Ondruch wrote:
I basically see several issues:
1. The sheer amount of packages being affect.
snip data
By all accounts we are
On 01/12/2015 02:08 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dear Fedora developers,
I'd like to collect some feedback about the $SUBJECT, i.e. making
minimal build root really minimal, explicitly specifying build
dependencies, etc.
I strongly support this idea.
In the past it probaby made sense to have GCC
On 01/12/2015 02:30 PM, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
W dniu 12.01.2015 o 14:08, Vít Ondruch pisze:
I'd like to collect some feedback about the $SUBJECT, i.e. making
minimal build root really minimal, explicitly specifying build
dependencies, etc.
Are you aware that this means changing
- Original Message -
Dear Fedora developers,
I'd like to collect some feedback about the $SUBJECT, i.e. making
minimal build root really minimal, explicitly specifying build
dependencies, etc.
The topic originally spring out in this [1] discussion on packaging
list. Interesting
Dear Fedora developers,
I'd like to collect some feedback about the $SUBJECT, i.e. making
minimal build root really minimal, explicitly specifying build
dependencies, etc.
The topic originally spring out in this [1] discussion on packaging
list. Interesting FPC discussion on this topic can be
W dniu 12.01.2015 o 14:08, Vít Ondruch pisze:
I'd like to collect some feedback about the $SUBJECT, i.e. making
minimal build root really minimal, explicitly specifying build
dependencies, etc.
Are you aware that this means changing build dependencies of most of
packages? Altering them just
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 14:30:49 +0100
Marcin Juszkiewicz mjuszkiew...@redhat.com wrote:
W dniu 12.01.2015 o 14:08, Vít Ondruch pisze:
I'd like to collect some feedback about the $SUBJECT, i.e. making
minimal build root really minimal, explicitly specifying build
dependencies, etc.
Are
Dne 12.1.2015 v 14:30 Marcin Juszkiewicz napsal(a):
W dniu 12.01.2015 o 14:08, Vít Ondruch pisze:
I'd like to collect some feedback about the $SUBJECT, i.e. making
minimal build root really minimal, explicitly specifying build
dependencies, etc.
Are you aware that this means changing build
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 12:35 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Vít Ondruch wrote:
I'd like to collect some feedback about the $SUBJECT, i.e. making
minimal build root really minimal, explicitly specifying build
dependencies, etc.
-1, all the serious software requires gcc,
Vít Ondruch wrote:
I'd like to collect some feedback about the $SUBJECT, i.e. making
minimal build root really minimal, explicitly specifying build
dependencies, etc.
-1, all the serious software requires gcc, gcc-c++ and make to build.
I actually think that cmake should be added to the
On Tue 13 Jan 2015 01:35:26 AM CET Kevin Kofler wrote:
Vít Ondruch wrote:
I'd like to collect some feedback about the $SUBJECT, i.e. making
minimal build root really minimal, explicitly specifying build
dependencies, etc.
-1, all the serious software requires gcc, gcc-c++ and make to build.
On 01/13/2015 07:12 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
On Tue 13 Jan 2015 01:35:26 AM CET Kevin Kofler wrote:
Vít Ondruch wrote:
I'd like to collect some feedback about the $SUBJECT, i.e. making
minimal build root really minimal, explicitly specifying build
dependencies, etc.
-1, all the
snip
Vít Ondruch wrote:
I'd like to collect some feedback about the $SUBJECT, i.e. making
minimal build root really minimal, explicitly specifying build
dependencies, etc.
+1
As somebody who works on software that sometimes get rebuilt by other
people not using koji or mock, I
65 matches
Mail list logo
