On (06/03/17 13:35), Tomas Krizek wrote: >On 03/03/2017 09:22 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote: >> 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 you provide correct paths to ./configure, yes - make && make install >will place all the bits in the right places. I commonly use it with >DESTDIR and sshfs, so I can develop locally and deploy to a remote >machine without building RPMs. >> 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? >It doesn't check runtime dependencies. I install the freeipa rpms once >to install dependencies and then use make && 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). >On-PR checks can handle this. When you need to fix a linter issue, you >can install the dependencies and run make lint locally. >> 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. >If someone often has this issue, the workflow can be modified to address >it. For example, I've configured my repo to run to run pylint and pep8 >on the modified files before the commit. >> 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 >> either. >> >> rob >> >I prefer Christian's approach that makes the project more upstream-friendly. > Could you explain what does "more upstream-friendly" mean? It seems that we have different opinion what does it mean.
>I think changing the default from "yes" to "autodetect" negatively >affects packagers, but it makes it more accessible to upstream developers. > I know it is comfortable to rely on travis with PRs but travis does not check on debian. And I would like to know how does the current approach limit (current) upstream developers. LS -- Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code
