Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> On (03/03/17 17:07), Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> ehlo,
>> This is a small continuation fo discussin from pull request
>> "Make pylint and jsl optional" #502[1]
>> Pylint and jslint are already optional because some downstream distributions
>> does not have such packages. This is a reason why desing document[2]
>> mention configuration options for disabling them.
>>   --disable-pylint --without-jslint
>> Previusly (4.4) "pylint was executed" before building rpm packages.
>> This strict requirement was changed because "make lint" is executed
>> with each pull request in travis.
>> It was changed in commits
>> master:
>> * 5c18feaa206bbaee692fc3640b7b79c8d9d6a638 CONFIGURE: Fix detection of pylint
>> * 3f91469f327d8d9f3b27e0b67c54a4f47ad845c1 CONFIGURE: Update help message 
>> for jslint
>> * b82d285a4a75e11cc9291ecca12d2fcc26f43ed1 SPEC: Fix build in mock
>> The main intention of PR#502 [1] is to make it even more optional
>> and do not fail if pylint is not installed on machine.
>> In another words, changing default value from "yes" to "autodetect".
>> I think the main reason is that it is not obvious that it is an optional
>> dependency if you run just "./configure". But that can be improved with
>> better error message. @see attachments.

I was going to go into a history of why it was required (we pushed
broken changes into master) but in retrospect that doesn't really
matter. I've been out of mainline development for some time so don't
know your current processes, but I do have a question:

Is it expected that ./configure && make && make install will result in
the bits in all the right places? We never had that expectation before
though I know Christian has been moving in that direction. Is that an
end goal? It would be nice for developing in-tree and pushing out micro
changes onto the current, live development system.

If so, does it have checks for all the runtime dependencies or will you
still have to do a bunch of work afterward the make install?

I've seen discussions about making freeIPA more accessible to the
average developer, which is good, but it is just so more complex than
the typical software because it is more about integration than most big
projects. So I don't know that this is every going to really be true.
Will it help the average dev install it? Sure, but then what? Will you
support such an install?

If you want to disable the checks for *lint that is certainly your
prerogative but I see some downsides:

- I used to setup new dev systems all the time and this is definitely
something I'd forget to do with some frequency
- As I understand it the checks will be executed by upstream before a
change is accepted so that's good but it adds a huge delay and the
requirement of a roundtrip to fix simple mistakes (happens all the time
in OpenStack).

I think my question boils down to how many people will this actually
benefit vs how much time will be lost resubmitting patches? I don't
think there is an easy answer for the first part but from my own
experience I'd expect fairly regularly for lint and pep8 errors.

On the other hand I guess this also will have the additional advantage
that make rpms will be significantly faster if you don't enable them.

The --disable vs --without is what bugs me most about the current
situation :-)

So in closing I'd just say that we made those checks mandatory for a
reason. Maybe that reason is no longer applicable with all the current
automation but I'd personally prefer Lukas's suggestion of requiring
them by default but providing clear output on how to disable them if
desired. This way the average user can easily work around it and it
won't impact current developers (unless they want it to). Is that as
simple as configure; make; make install? No, but it isn't a huge leap


Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
Contribute to FreeIPA:

Reply via email to