Dne 16.2.2018 v 16:33 Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a): > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 04:22:58PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> >> Dne 16.2.2018 v 16:12 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): >>> Dne 16.2.2018 v 15:27 Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a): >>>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 12:56:32PM +0100, Jan Kurik wrote: >>>>> Proposed System Wide Change: Remove GCC from BuildRoot >>>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_GCC_from_BuildRoot >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Owner(s): >>>>> * Igor Gnatenko <ignatenkobrain at fedoraproject dot org> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Removing gcc and gcc-c++ from default buildroot in Koji and mock. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> == Detailed description == >>>>> Since beginning of Fedora, gcc (and gcc-c++) are installed in every >>>>> buildroot. Times have changed and nowadays many of packages are not >>>>> written in C/C++, they are written in Python, Ruby, Node.js, Go, Rust, >>>>> OCaml, Perl and so on so they don't need to have C/C++ compiler. >>>>> Installing gcc and gcc-c++ takes time so if we remove it, we can >>>>> improve build times for many of the packages. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> == Scope == >>>>> * Proposal owners: >>>>> Remove gcc, gcc-c++ from build group in Koji and from buildsys-build >>>>> group in comps. >>>>> >>>>> * Other developers: >>>>> Maintainers should follow guidelines and add BuildRequires: gcc if >>>>> they need it during build (this guideline exists for long time). >>>> I feel like this is something that many many many packages will not >>>> have present. For a long time it was acceptable to omit BuildRequires >>>> for stuff that was in the default build root, and while the C/C++ >>>> packaging guidelines do say you need BR: gcc, I expect most packagers >>>> have never noticed this changed. >>>> >>>> IOW, if we remove gcc/gcc-c++ from the build root, *before* fixing >>>> up packages we're going to create a huge pile of rebuild failures. >>>> >>>> Can we please do something here to identify which packages likely have >>>> missing BR: gcc and automatically fix up the specs, rather than creating >>>> 100's of failing packages and then waiting weeks in a broken state for >>>> maintainers to fix them up. >>> When I started this discussion 3 years ago, I tried to get some >>> estimates in subthread started by this message: >>> >>> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/AEYQSAGVPT64TNZ3PA52U4PLEPUOOKGV/ >>> >> Or may be this one? >> >> >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/EMWYUIZL4QQBAPKEVRNYOFKUPWSW3F7G/ >> >> >> Just for the fun, I run the same queries for Rawhide: >> >> $ dnf repoquery --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=rawhide-source --arch src >> '*' | wc -l >> 20946 >> >> $ dnf repoquery --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=rawhide --source >> --whatrequires 'libc.so.6*' | sort -u | sed -r 's/(.*)-.*-.*/\1/' | uniq >> | wc -l >> 8559 >> >> >> 40,86 % of packages is in C/C++. It looks the trend continues ... > Don't suppose you have any easy way to query how many .spec files > in master, have a "BuildRequires: gcc". Would be interesting to get > a guide as to how many of those 8559 are likely to break from this > proposed change...
$ curl -OL http://src.fedoraproject.org/repo/rpm-specs-latest.tar.xz $ tar xfv rpm-specs-latest.tar.xz $ cd rpm-specs/ $ grep -R -e 'BuildRequires.*gcc' | wc -l 1912 Vít > > Regards, > Daniel _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
