Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 06:46:18AM -0800, Tom Stellard wrote:
> On 2/11/21 2:27 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > Tom, Kevin,
> > 
> > What is the status here? It seems that Koji does not include make anymore. 
> > However, my local build does. So whatever change was done on Koji should be 
> > probably reflected also in fedora-comps.
> > 
> 
> I submitted a pull request for this:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/pull-request/601

Merged. Should be in next compose(es).

kevin


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Tom Stellard]

On 2/11/21 2:27 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:

Tom, Kevin,

What is the status here? It seems that Koji does not include make anymore. 
However, my local build does. So whatever change was done on Koji should be 
probably reflected also in fedora-comps.



I submitted a pull request for this:
https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/pull-request/601

-Tom



BTW it would be nice if Koji used standard mock configs, especially I don't see 
a reason why Koji should not use standard `config_opts['chroot_setup_cmd'] = 
'install @{% if mirrored %}buildsys-{% endif %}build'`


Vít


Dne 04. 11. 20 v 19:12 Ben Cotton napsal(a):

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_make_from_BuildRoot

== Summary ==
This change will remove make from the default buildroot in Koji and mock.

== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:tstellar| Tom Stellard]]
* Email: 

== Detailed Description ==

= Phase 1: Analysis =
For this change, we will start by creating a list of all packages that
have a build-time dependency on make.  This will be done by analyzing
spec files and also by rebuilding all packages in Fedora with make
removed from the buildroot to see which packages fail to build.  Once
we have this list, we will remove packages that already have
BuildRequires:make in their spec file, and this final list[1] will be
all the packages that need to be updated in Phase 2.

[1] 
https://github.com/tstellar/fedora-change-make-buildroot/blob/main/needs_br_make.txt

= Phase 2: Package Updates =
Once we have the list of packages that need to be updated, we will
proceed with adding BuildRequires: make to all spec files that require
it.  This new BuildRequires will be added to the line after the last
BuildRequires in the spec file.  The release number for packages will
'''*not*''' be incremented for this change.

The spec file updates will be automated and changes will be pushed
directly to dist-git once they are ready.

= Phase 3: Update Buildroot =
Once package spec files have been updated, then we can proceed with
removing make from the BuildRoot.  This will be done by removing make
from the build group in Koji and by removing make from the
buildsys-build group in comps (fedora-comps).  In order to avoid
issues with Koschei, this change will need to be made as close as
possible to the start of the mass rebuild.  If possible, we will try
to first remove make from the mass rebuild side-tag and then remove it
from rawhide after the rebuild completes.

= Phase 4: Monitor Failures =
Once all the changes are in place, we will continue to monitor koji
builds to see if there are any failures related to this change.  We
expect that the analysis done in Phase 1 would give us the complete
list of packages that need to be updated, but it is always possible
that something will be missed.

== Feedback ==
* Removing make from the Buildroot without rebuilding the packages
first has the potential to cause mass failures in Koschei.  This is
because Koschei builds from the latest SRPM and not from dist-git.  We
can minimize this problem by removing make from the buildroot as close
as possible to the mass rebuild.  The proposal has been updated now to
account for this issue.

== Benefit to Fedora ==
Based on my research[1], Fedora Rawhide has 22,309 packages, and there
are approximately 10,378 packages that either use make explicitly or
fail to build when make is removed form the buildroot.  This means
that there are around 11,931 packages that don't need make.  Removing
make from the BuildRoot will reduce the network traffic, download
times, and disk usage for these builds in Koji and also for users
doing builds with mock.

Removing make (and its dependencies) will:

* Reduce the BuildRoot download size by: 7.3 MB [2]:
** make: 539k
** gc: 104k
** guile22: 6.6M
** libtool-ltdl: 36k
* Reduce the BuildRoot install size by; 46 MB [2]:
** make: 1.6M
** gc: 229k
** guile22: 44M
** libtool-ltdl: 71k

[1] https://github.com/tstellar/fedora-change-make-buildroot

[2] Package sizes are from the x86_64 packages.


== Scope ==
* '''Proposal owners:''' Tom Stellard
* '''Package Maintainers:''' Fedora package maintainers should report
bugs if they think there is a problem caused by this change, but
otherwise there will be no action required by them.
* '''Proven Packager:''' The proposal owner will need to either apply
for provenpackager status or get the help of someone with
provenpackager status in order to make the spec file changes that are
required.

* '''Release engineering:''' [https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9829
#9829] (a check of an impact with Release Engineering is needed)
* '''Policies and guidelines:''' The packager guidelines will need to
be updated to mention that BuildRequires: make is now required for all
packages that need make.
* '''Trademark approval:''' N/A (not needed for this Change)
* '''Alignment with Objectives:''' This aligns with the Fedora
Minimization [https://pagure.io/minimization/issue/12 objective].

== Upgrade/compatibility 

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Vít Ondruch]

Tom, Kevin,

What is the status here? It seems that Koji does not include make 
anymore. However, my local build does. So whatever change was done on 
Koji should be probably reflected also in fedora-comps.


BTW it would be nice if Koji used standard mock configs, especially I 
don't see a reason why Koji should not use standard 
`config_opts['chroot_setup_cmd'] = 'install @{% if mirrored 
%}buildsys-{% endif %}build'`



Vít


Dne 04. 11. 20 v 19:12 Ben Cotton napsal(a):

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_make_from_BuildRoot

== Summary ==
This change will remove make from the default buildroot in Koji and mock.

== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:tstellar| Tom Stellard]]
* Email: 

== Detailed Description ==

= Phase 1: Analysis =
For this change, we will start by creating a list of all packages that
have a build-time dependency on make.  This will be done by analyzing
spec files and also by rebuilding all packages in Fedora with make
removed from the buildroot to see which packages fail to build.  Once
we have this list, we will remove packages that already have
BuildRequires:make in their spec file, and this final list[1] will be
all the packages that need to be updated in Phase 2.

[1] 
https://github.com/tstellar/fedora-change-make-buildroot/blob/main/needs_br_make.txt

= Phase 2: Package Updates =
Once we have the list of packages that need to be updated, we will
proceed with adding BuildRequires: make to all spec files that require
it.  This new BuildRequires will be added to the line after the last
BuildRequires in the spec file.  The release number for packages will
'''*not*''' be incremented for this change.

The spec file updates will be automated and changes will be pushed
directly to dist-git once they are ready.

= Phase 3: Update Buildroot =
Once package spec files have been updated, then we can proceed with
removing make from the BuildRoot.  This will be done by removing make
from the build group in Koji and by removing make from the
buildsys-build group in comps (fedora-comps).  In order to avoid
issues with Koschei, this change will need to be made as close as
possible to the start of the mass rebuild.  If possible, we will try
to first remove make from the mass rebuild side-tag and then remove it
from rawhide after the rebuild completes.

= Phase 4: Monitor Failures =
Once all the changes are in place, we will continue to monitor koji
builds to see if there are any failures related to this change.  We
expect that the analysis done in Phase 1 would give us the complete
list of packages that need to be updated, but it is always possible
that something will be missed.

== Feedback ==
* Removing make from the Buildroot without rebuilding the packages
first has the potential to cause mass failures in Koschei.  This is
because Koschei builds from the latest SRPM and not from dist-git.  We
can minimize this problem by removing make from the buildroot as close
as possible to the mass rebuild.  The proposal has been updated now to
account for this issue.

== Benefit to Fedora ==
Based on my research[1], Fedora Rawhide has 22,309 packages, and there
are approximately 10,378 packages that either use make explicitly or
fail to build when make is removed form the buildroot.  This means
that there are around 11,931 packages that don't need make.  Removing
make from the BuildRoot will reduce the network traffic, download
times, and disk usage for these builds in Koji and also for users
doing builds with mock.

Removing make (and its dependencies) will:

* Reduce the BuildRoot download size by: 7.3 MB [2]:
** make: 539k
** gc: 104k
** guile22: 6.6M
** libtool-ltdl: 36k
* Reduce the BuildRoot install size by; 46 MB [2]:
** make: 1.6M
** gc: 229k
** guile22: 44M
** libtool-ltdl: 71k

[1] https://github.com/tstellar/fedora-change-make-buildroot

[2] Package sizes are from the x86_64 packages.


== Scope ==
* '''Proposal owners:''' Tom Stellard
* '''Package Maintainers:''' Fedora package maintainers should report
bugs if they think there is a problem caused by this change, but
otherwise there will be no action required by them.
* '''Proven Packager:''' The proposal owner will need to either apply
for provenpackager status or get the help of someone with
provenpackager status in order to make the spec file changes that are
required.

* '''Release engineering:''' [https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9829
#9829] (a check of an impact with Release Engineering is needed)
* '''Policies and guidelines:''' The packager guidelines will need to
be updated to mention that BuildRequires: make is now required for all
packages that need make.
* '''Trademark approval:''' N/A (not needed for this Change)
* '''Alignment with Objectives:''' This aligns with the Fedora
Minimization [https://pagure.io/minimization/issue/12 objective].

== Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
This should not impact upgrades.

== How To Test ==
This change can be tested by rebuilding affected packages.  The goal
is 

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Tom Stellard]

On 11/10/20 3:53 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:

* Tom Stellard:


On 11/9/20 1:48 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:

* Miro Hrončok:


On 11/9/20 7:05 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:

Thanks for clarifying.  So it does sound like gcc will need at
dependency on make.  If you do decide to use a weak dependency for this,
then I think I will need to update the proposal to BuildRequire:
make when gcc is used, so that we don't cause a performance
regression in the builds.


Well, we can add:

  Requires: (make if redhat-rpm-config)

To gcc.

Or
Requires: (make if gcc)
to redhat-rpm-config.  Given that the requirement actually comes
from
the -flto usage in redhat-rpm-config, that seems more reasonable to me.



This make sense, but does this work if redhat-rpm-config and gcc are
installed in separate transactions?


We already use

Requires: (annobin if gcc)

and that doesn't seem to cause any problems.



Ok, I've update the proposal to include this change.

-Tom


Thanks,
Florian


___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Florian Weimer]

* Tom Stellard:

> On 11/9/20 1:48 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Miro Hrončok:
>> 
>>> On 11/9/20 7:05 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
 Thanks for clarifying.  So it does sound like gcc will need at
 dependency on make.  If you do decide to use a weak dependency for this,
 then I think I will need to update the proposal to BuildRequire:
 make when gcc is used, so that we don't cause a performance
 regression in the builds.
>>>
>>> Well, we can add:
>>>
>>>  Requires: (make if redhat-rpm-config)
>>>
>>> To gcc.
>> Or
>> Requires: (make if gcc)
>> to redhat-rpm-config.  Given that the requirement actually comes
>> from
>> the -flto usage in redhat-rpm-config, that seems more reasonable to me.
>> 
>
> This make sense, but does this work if redhat-rpm-config and gcc are
> installed in separate transactions?

We already use

Requires: (annobin if gcc)

and that doesn't seem to cause any problems.

Thanks,
Florian
-- 
Red Hat GmbH, https://de.redhat.com/ , Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Brian Klemm, Laurie Krebs, Michael O'Neill
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Miro Hrončok]

On 11/9/20 11:29 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:

On 11/9/20 1:48 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:

* Miro Hrončok:


On 11/9/20 7:05 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:

Thanks for clarifying.  So it does sound like gcc will need at
dependency on make.  If you do decide to use a weak dependency for this,
then I think I will need to update the proposal to BuildRequire:
make when gcc is used, so that we don't cause a performance
regression in the builds.


Well, we can add:

 Requires: (make if redhat-rpm-config)

To gcc.


Or

Requires: (make if gcc)

to redhat-rpm-config.  Given that the requirement actually comes from
the -flto usage in redhat-rpm-config, that seems more reasonable to me.



This make sense, but does this work if redhat-rpm-config and gcc are installed 
in separate transactions?


Yes.

--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Tom Stellard]

On 11/9/20 1:48 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:

* Miro Hrončok:


On 11/9/20 7:05 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:

Thanks for clarifying.  So it does sound like gcc will need at
dependency on make.  If you do decide to use a weak dependency for this,
then I think I will need to update the proposal to BuildRequire:
make when gcc is used, so that we don't cause a performance
regression in the builds.


Well, we can add:

 Requires: (make if redhat-rpm-config)

To gcc.


Or

Requires: (make if gcc)

to redhat-rpm-config.  Given that the requirement actually comes from
the -flto usage in redhat-rpm-config, that seems more reasonable to me.



This make sense, but does this work if redhat-rpm-config and gcc are 
installed in separate transactions?


-Tom


Thanks,
Florian


___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Florian Weimer]

* Miro Hrončok:

> On 11/9/20 7:05 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
>> Thanks for clarifying.  So it does sound like gcc will need at 
>> dependency on make.  If you do decide to use a weak dependency for this,
>> then I think I will need to update the proposal to BuildRequire:
>> make when gcc is used, so that we don't cause a performance
>> regression in the builds.
>
> Well, we can add:
>
> Requires: (make if redhat-rpm-config)
>
> To gcc.

Or

Requires: (make if gcc)

to redhat-rpm-config.  Given that the requirement actually comes from
the -flto usage in redhat-rpm-config, that seems more reasonable to me.

Thanks,
Florian
-- 
Red Hat GmbH, https://de.redhat.com/ , Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Brian Klemm, Laurie Krebs, Michael O'Neill
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Miro Hrončok]

On 11/9/20 7:05 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:


Thanks for clarifying.  So it does sound like gcc will need at 
dependency on make.  If you do decide to use a weak dependency for this,
then I think I will need to update the proposal to BuildRequire: make when gcc 
is used, so that we don't cause a performance regression in the builds.


Well, we can add:

Requires: (make if redhat-rpm-config)

To gcc.

--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Tom Stellard]

On 11/4/20 3:46 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:

On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 12:43:13PM -0800, Tom Stellard wrote:

No, in that case gcc needs to Require: gas, because it is a run-time
dependency of that package.

CMake will still work if make is not installed.  Packages that use
cmake + Ninja should require those packages, and packages that use
cmake + make should require those packages too.


I don't choose either. I just run cmake and it chooses what to
use as it's default build tool. If I told it to use a specific
build tool then I would see your point, but for the default one
it seems reasonable that it should require it as it has made
the decision to use it.



Ok, I think this is a fair point especially after the f33 change were we are
now using cmake --build and cmake --install instead of invoking make
directly.

The only issue is if cmake changes make to be a weak dependency can we still
rely on this?  Do brew builds automatically install weak dependencies?

If the change was automated and you did not have to do anything would you
still be opposed to having your spec files updated with BuildRequires: make


Well, gcc really should have either weak or strong dependency on make too
given that -flto is now used everywhere.



Thanks for clarifying.  So it does sound like gcc will need at 
dependency on make.  If you do decide to use a weak dependency for this,
then I think I will need to update the proposal to BuildRequire: make 
when gcc is used, so that we don't cause a performance regression in the 
builds.


-Tom


Jakub


___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Tom Stellard]

On 11/5/20 10:44 AM, Robbie Harwood wrote:

Ben Cotton  writes:


= Phase 2: Package Updates =
Once we have the list of packages that need to be updated, we will
proceed with adding BuildRequires: make to all spec files that require
it.  This new BuildRequires will be added to the line after the last
BuildRequires in the spec file.  The release number for packages will
'''*not*''' be incremented for this change.

The spec file updates will be automated and changes will be pushed
directly to dist-git once they are ready.


-1.  I think you should use pull requests for this, and continue to
believe that mass-pushing changes to dist-git is an abuse of
provenpackager.



This came up in the discussion about removing from gcc/g++ from the 
buildroot and it seemed to me like committing directly was preferred, 
though I understand not everyone may agree with this.


I'm planning to do an announcement on the mailing list and give 
maintainers about a week to make the changes manually if that is what 
they prefer.  I will update the proposal to make this clear.


-Tom


Thanks,
--Robbie


___
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


___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Gary Buhrmaster]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 3:44 PM Robbie Harwood  wrote:
>
> Ben Cotton  writes:
> >
> > The spec file updates will be automated and changes will be pushed
> > directly to dist-git once they are ready.
>
> -1.  I think you should use pull requests for this, and continue to
> believe that mass-pushing changes to dist-git is an abuse of
> provenpackager.
>

While the individuals actively participating in this
discussion are likely willing to deal with any changes
as approved, and some wish to do it themselves in
advance rather than having a bulk change applied
to the packages they shepard, it is my belief that
there are a lot of packagers that will welcome
someone else doing the changes for them,
especially when they have many packages, or are
only an occasional packager that does not fully grok
all the packaging infrastructure/artifacts and may
not always pay close attention to these change
proposals, and could easily be surprised if their
package FTBFS at the next (mass) rebuild due to
one of these types of changes.

I don't know how to measure the "silent" majorities
of packagers opinions/preferences that such
change proposals should default to, but I certainly
believe we should do what is preferred and
easiest for the majority (and not for specific
people), especially when the change impacts
around a third of the packages out there.

My gut tells me that automatically adding in the
BR make to the package source, if not already
there (giving those that wish to make the change
themselves an opportunity to add it now) is going
to be the best for the most, but I have no
actual data to support that conclusion.

And, for what it is worth, recent changes that
impacted lots of packages (for F33, the cmake
macro changes) resulted in updates by the change
owners to packages so that the packagers could,
should they choose, mostly ignore the change
proposal and focus on other things.
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Florian Weimer]

* Daniel P. Berrangé:

> Do we need a default build root package set at all ?

I think we need something for running the SRPM build and later for
parsing the spec file to get the actual build dependencies.  Both steps
can run arbitrary code, so they need a build environment.

Thanks,
Florian
-- 
Red Hat GmbH, https://de.redhat.com/ , Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Brian Klemm, Laurie Krebs, Michael O'Neill
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Robbie Harwood]

Ben Cotton  writes:

> = Phase 2: Package Updates =
> Once we have the list of packages that need to be updated, we will
> proceed with adding BuildRequires: make to all spec files that require
> it.  This new BuildRequires will be added to the line after the last
> BuildRequires in the spec file.  The release number for packages will
> '''*not*''' be incremented for this change.
>
> The spec file updates will be automated and changes will be pushed
> directly to dist-git once they are ready.

-1.  I think you should use pull requests for this, and continue to
believe that mass-pushing changes to dist-git is an abuse of
provenpackager.

Thanks,
--Robbie


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Robbie Harwood]

Stephen John Smoogen  writes:

> On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 08:52,  wrote:
>
>> The make package use 539k of space. And for gcc + C++ it's more than
>> 30 Mo.  Does it really worth the effort on changing all the dependent
>> packages ?
>
> Personally I am getting tired of this death of the buildroot by a
> million cuts. Could we just 'engineer' the build root to have what we
> want in it versus these continual sculptor like cuts to a block of
> marble to try and get the inner statue out? Because in around 10-20
> more Fedora releases someone is going to say 'this is a pile of
> rubble' and start on a new block.

Same.  If the goal is to not have a BuildRoot at all, let's just make
that change all at once.  Or if the goal is to have a minimal BuildRoot,
go about it in the other direction: list things that should be in it,
rather than pruning stuff out one change at a time.

Thanks,
--Robbie


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 09:42, Daniel P. Berrangé  wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 08:57:32AM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 08:52,  wrote:
> >
> > > The make package use 539k of space. And for gcc + C++ it's more than
> 30 Mo.
> > > Does it really worth the effort on changing all the dependent packages
> ?
> > >
> > >
> > Personally I am getting tired of this death of the buildroot by a million
> > cuts. Could we just 'engineer' the build root to have what we want in it
> > versus these continual sculptor like cuts to a block of marble to try and
> > get the inner statue out? Because in around 10-20 more Fedora releases
> > someone is going to say 'this is a pile of rubble' and start on a new
> > block.
>
> Do we need a default build root package set at all ?
>
> Can it be the empty set, and then have RPMs specify their full set
> of build requires without assuming any defaults ?
>
> "fast death by one big cut" instead of "slow death by a million cuts",
> which will put an end to repeated feature proposals to trim out some
> new thing from the build root.
>
>
That is my grumpy morning idea.. each one of these proposals comes with a
"this drops down the need for pulling in packages which are never used..
makes the build root N k smaller... etc." which is a boilerplate text which
eventually takes up more disk space on all the mail and web servers keeping
track of these emails than is saved in anyone's buildroot.

If we are going to have a 'buildroot' it should just be the packages we
know are needed for everything.. and if that is {} then it is {}. If it is
a {} then it needs to be documented what is in it and why each package is
in it. Maybe SuSE has always been right to make sure that nearly everything
is actually documented as required/buildrequired in a package. [Or at least
this has been my opinion from looking through their spec files.]

Anyway I am going back to trying to figure out how to open this child
safety headache medicine bottle.. and will stop being a grump here.



> Regards,
> Daniel
> --
> |: https://berrange.com  -o-
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
> |: https://libvirt.org -o-
> https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
> |: https://entangle-photo.org-o-
> https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
> ___
> 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
>


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Daniel P . Berrangé]

On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 08:57:32AM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 08:52,  wrote:
> 
> > The make package use 539k of space. And for gcc + C++ it's more than 30 Mo.
> > Does it really worth the effort on changing all the dependent packages ?
> >
> >
> Personally I am getting tired of this death of the buildroot by a million
> cuts. Could we just 'engineer' the build root to have what we want in it
> versus these continual sculptor like cuts to a block of marble to try and
> get the inner statue out? Because in around 10-20 more Fedora releases
> someone is going to say 'this is a pile of rubble' and start on a new
> block.

Do we need a default build root package set at all ?

Can it be the empty set, and then have RPMs specify their full set
of build requires without assuming any defaults ?

"fast death by one big cut" instead of "slow death by a million cuts",
which will put an end to repeated feature proposals to trim out some
new thing from the build root.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com  -o-https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o-https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org-o-https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 08:57:32AM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 08:52,  wrote:
> 
> > The make package use 539k of space. And for gcc + C++ it's more than 30 Mo.
> > Does it really worth the effort on changing all the dependent packages ?
> >
> >
> Personally I am getting tired of this death of the buildroot by a million
> cuts. Could we just 'engineer' the build root to have what we want in it
> versus these continual sculptor like cuts to a block of marble to try and
> get the inner statue out?

Only if the tools we use never change. 10 years ago make was widely used.
Nowadays with meson, I go weeks without a single make invocation.
Python/rust/etc. don't normally require make either.

The nice thing about this proposal is that it tries to do the right thing
and preemptively fix all packages. If everything goes well, the change 
will be mostly invisible. Nice and incremental, that's the way to do things
in a distro without making people unhappy.

> Because in around 10-20 more Fedora releases someone is going to say
> 'this is a pile of rubble' and start on a new block.

This change is something that actually helps avoid that: evolve with
the times, instead of trying to cling to an outdated tool, until in 5–10
years we think that so much cruft has accumulated that it's better to
start over.

Zbyszek
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Tom Hughes via devel]

On 05/11/2020 11:56, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:


CMake actually just generates the makefiles, you still run make directly (as
with autotools).

The makefiles then do several complex things, possibly including running
make with different arguments (and also calling back into CMake by running
cmake with special arguments multiple times), to handle the progress
reporting, but the initial make invocation comes from the specfile.


Not using the new %cmake_build etc macros it doesn't. Those invoke
cmake which then invokes make.

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 08:52,  wrote:

> The make package use 539k of space. And for gcc + C++ it's more than 30 Mo.
> Does it really worth the effort on changing all the dependent packages ?
>
>
Personally I am getting tired of this death of the buildroot by a million
cuts. Could we just 'engineer' the build root to have what we want in it
versus these continual sculptor like cuts to a block of marble to try and
get the inner statue out? Because in around 10-20 more Fedora releases
someone is going to say 'this is a pile of rubble' and start on a new
block.



> - Mail original -
> De: "Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek" 
> À: "Development discussions related to Fedora" <
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org>
> Envoyé: Jeudi 5 Novembre 2020 14:42:08
> Objet: Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot
> (System-Wide Change)
>
> On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 01:13:47PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 9:46 PM Neal Gompa  wrote:
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > >
> > > Koji/Brew disables weak dependencies. The weak dependency would be for
> > > developer convenience.
> > >
> > > > If the change was automated and you did not have to do anything would
> > > > you still be opposed to having your spec files updated with
> > > > BuildRequires: make
> > > >
> > >
> > > You still need BR: make.
> >
> > Couldn't we add something like this to the cmake package?
> >
> > Requires: (make or ninja)
> > Suggests: make
> >
> > Which would make sure at least *one* of the available backends is
> > installed, and would make it prefer make if ninja is not specified
> > explicitly.
>
> It that works, it'd be great.
>
> Zbyszek
> ___
> 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
> ___
> 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
>


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[ycollette . nospam]

The make package use 539k of space. And for gcc + C++ it's more than 30 Mo.
Does it really worth the effort on changing all the dependent packages ?

- Mail original -
De: "Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek" 
À: "Development discussions related to Fedora" 
Envoyé: Jeudi 5 Novembre 2020 14:42:08
Objet: Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide 
Change)

On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 01:13:47PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 9:46 PM Neal Gompa  wrote:
> 
> (snip)
> 
> >
> > Koji/Brew disables weak dependencies. The weak dependency would be for
> > developer convenience.
> >
> > > If the change was automated and you did not have to do anything would
> > > you still be opposed to having your spec files updated with
> > > BuildRequires: make
> > >
> >
> > You still need BR: make.
> 
> Couldn't we add something like this to the cmake package?
> 
> Requires: (make or ninja)
> Suggests: make
> 
> Which would make sure at least *one* of the available backends is
> installed, and would make it prefer make if ninja is not specified
> explicitly.

It that works, it'd be great.

Zbyszek
___
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
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 01:13:47PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 9:46 PM Neal Gompa  wrote:
> 
> (snip)
> 
> >
> > Koji/Brew disables weak dependencies. The weak dependency would be for
> > developer convenience.
> >
> > > If the change was automated and you did not have to do anything would
> > > you still be opposed to having your spec files updated with
> > > BuildRequires: make
> > >
> >
> > You still need BR: make.
> 
> Couldn't we add something like this to the cmake package?
> 
> Requires: (make or ninja)
> Suggests: make
> 
> Which would make sure at least *one* of the available backends is
> installed, and would make it prefer make if ninja is not specified
> explicitly.

It that works, it'd be great.

Zbyszek
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Petr Pisar]

On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 12:56:17PM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Petr Pisar wrote:
> > That's because cmake executes make (if CMakeList does not override it).
> 
> CMake actually just generates the makefiles, you still run make directly (as 
> with autotools).
> 
That's not true anymore. CMake needs make available when generating the
Makefiles. The inical cmake invocation fails. See
.

-- Petr


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Panu Matilainen]

On 11/5/20 2:09 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:

On 11/5/20 12:59 PM, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
This change will remove make from the default buildroot in Koji and 
mock.
What is the point of removing a package that is used by almost all 
package

builds from the default buildroot? It is just a pointless backwards
incompatibility.


https://github.com/tstellar/fedora-change-make-buildroot/blob/main/needs_br_make.txt 



This has ~8k lines. Fedora has ~22k source packages.

That is a lot (36%), but definitively not "almost all".

For comparison, ~6.5k packages now BR gcc/gcc-c++. So the scope is quite 
similar.




+1

Make *was* used by almost all package builds, back in the day. The world 
has moved on, so should we...


- Panu -
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Florian Weimer]

* Kevin Kofler via devel:

> I would rather wonder whether we really need our default make implementation 
> to be extensible in Scheme (the guile22 package). The size of make itself is 
> negligible.

gdb-headless also needs Guile, and in most cases, once you use make, you
also end up with debuginfo indexing using GDB.

I'm talking to our debugging team, and we'll figure out what to do
there.  Most likely there is going to be a separate Fedora 34 change
proposal for the Guile dependencies.

Thanks,
Florian
-- 
Red Hat GmbH, https://de.redhat.com/ , Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Brian Klemm, Laurie Krebs, Michael O'Neill
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Fabio Valentini]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 9:46 PM Neal Gompa  wrote:

(snip)

>
> Koji/Brew disables weak dependencies. The weak dependency would be for
> developer convenience.
>
> > If the change was automated and you did not have to do anything would
> > you still be opposed to having your spec files updated with
> > BuildRequires: make
> >
>
> You still need BR: make.

Couldn't we add something like this to the cmake package?

Requires: (make or ninja)
Suggests: make

Which would make sure at least *one* of the available backends is
installed, and would make it prefer make if ninja is not specified
explicitly.

Fabio
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Miro Hrončok]

On 11/5/20 12:59 PM, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:

This change will remove make from the default buildroot in Koji and mock.

What is the point of removing a package that is used by almost all package
builds from the default buildroot? It is just a pointless backwards
incompatibility.


https://github.com/tstellar/fedora-change-make-buildroot/blob/main/needs_br_make.txt

This has ~8k lines. Fedora has ~22k source packages.

That is a lot (36%), but definitively not "almost all".

For comparison, ~6.5k packages now BR gcc/gcc-c++. So the scope is quite 
similar.

--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Kevin Kofler via devel]

Ben Cotton wrote:
> This change will remove make from the default buildroot in Koji and mock.

What is the point of removing a package that is used by almost all package 
builds from the default buildroot? It is just a pointless backwards 
incompatibility.

> * Reduce the BuildRoot download size by: 7.3 MB [2]:
> ** make: 539k
> ** gc: 104k
> ** guile22: 6.6M
> ** libtool-ltdl: 36k
> * Reduce the BuildRoot install size by; 46 MB [2]:
> ** make: 1.6M
> ** gc: 229k
> ** guile22: 44M
> ** libtool-ltdl: 71k

I would rather wonder whether we really need our default make implementation 
to be extensible in Scheme (the guile22 package). The size of make itself is 
negligible.

Kevin Kofler
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Kevin Kofler via devel]

Petr Pisar wrote:
> That's because cmake executes make (if CMakeList does not override it).

CMake actually just generates the makefiles, you still run make directly (as 
with autotools).

The makefiles then do several complex things, possibly including running 
make with different arguments (and also calling back into CMake by running 
cmake with special arguments multiple times), to handle the progress 
reporting, but the initial make invocation comes from the specfile.

Kevin Kofler
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Petr Pisar]

On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 07:15:47PM +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 6:50 PM Richard Shaw  wrote:
> >
> > Is the expectation to explicitly BR: make?
> >
> > Or would pulling in autotools/automake/cmake suffice?
> 
> The cmake package currently requires make.

That's because cmake executes make (if CMakeList does not override it).

> I do not believe the auto packages requires make,
> so you would need to add make explicitly there.
> 
That's because the autotools do not execute make. You execute makw manually
after finishing autotools.

> Probably safest to not make assumptions about
> what other packages pull in, for that might change
> at some point.

Exactly. If you execute it, you need depend on it.

-- Petr


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Tom Stellard]

On 11/4/20 10:13 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:

On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 1:15 PM Ben Cotton  wrote:


https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_make_from_BuildRoot

== Summary ==
This change will remove make from the default buildroot in Koji and mock.



== Feedback ==
* Removing make from the Buildroot without rebuilding the packages
first has the potential to cause mass failures in Koschei.  This is
because Koschei builds from the latest SRPM and not from dist-git.  We
can minimize this problem by removing make from the buildroot as close
as possible to the mass rebuild.  The proposal has been updated now to
account for this issue.


Why do this at all in the build environment until weeks, or months,
after the .spec files are updated? Updating the .spec files has no
practical effect on the built RPMs and can be done *long* before build
tools are updated.


This is the plan.  If the proposal is approved, we will begin to update 
the spec files right away.  We won't be making changes to the buildroot 
until the mass rebuild, which will be around 1-20-2021


-Tom


/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
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


___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Nico Kadel-Garcia]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 1:15 PM Ben Cotton  wrote:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_make_from_BuildRoot
>
> == Summary ==
> This change will remove make from the default buildroot in Koji and mock.

> == Feedback ==
> * Removing make from the Buildroot without rebuilding the packages
> first has the potential to cause mass failures in Koschei.  This is
> because Koschei builds from the latest SRPM and not from dist-git.  We
> can minimize this problem by removing make from the buildroot as close
> as possible to the mass rebuild.  The proposal has been updated now to
> account for this issue.

Why do this at all in the build environment until weeks, or months,
after the .spec files are updated? Updating the .spec files has no
practical effect on the built RPMs and can be done *long* before build
tools are updated.
/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Miro Hrončok]

On 11/4/20 7:12 PM, Ben Cotton wrote:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_make_from_BuildRoot

== Summary ==
This change will remove make from the default buildroot in Koji and mock.


I fully support this.

Next one: info ;)

--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Jeff Law]

On 11/4/20 2:06 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
> On 11/4/20 3:57 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 03:51:40PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
 Well, gcc really should have either weak or strong dependency on
 make too
 given that -flto is now used everywhere.
>>>
>>> The goal of this change seems to include removal of Make as a
>>> dependency for the LTO wrapper used by GCC.
>>
>> That is definitely not something that really happened in GCC, the only
>> change that has been done is to make sure that gcc -flto doesn't fail
>> because of missing make, but missing make will just mean that the
>> compilation will be significantly slower.
>>
>
> My understanding was that the performance of gcc -flto when using
> something other than make (e.g. ninja) to build was the same whether
> or not you have make installed[1].  Is this correct?
>
> I thought you had to be using make to get the parallelization benefits
> of -flto=auto.

It will fall back to #cpu threads available if the jobserver isn't
available.  At least that's how it's supposed to work.


jeff

___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 01:06:03PM -0800, Tom Stellard wrote:
> On 11/4/20 3:57 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 03:51:40PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > Well, gcc really should have either weak or strong dependency on make 
> > > > too
> > > > given that -flto is now used everywhere.
> > > 
> > > The goal of this change seems to include removal of Make as a
> > > dependency for the LTO wrapper used by GCC.
> > 
> > That is definitely not something that really happened in GCC, the only
> > change that has been done is to make sure that gcc -flto doesn't fail
> > because of missing make, but missing make will just mean that the
> > compilation will be significantly slower.
> > 
> 
> My understanding was that the performance of gcc -flto when using something
> other than make (e.g. ninja) to build was the same whether or not you have
> make installed[1].  Is this correct?

That is not correct.
-flto=jobserver will only parallelize if a make jobserver is active and thus
only when executed from make -jN with + at the start of the command,
but -flto=auto uses jobserver if it is detected, otherwise falls back to
detecting number of threads to use and parallelizing using that (but it uses
make for that parallelization), or say -flto=32 asks for 32 parallel jobs
(and again needs make to do that).

Jakub
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Tom Stellard]

On 11/4/20 3:57 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:

On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 03:51:40PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:

Well, gcc really should have either weak or strong dependency on make too
given that -flto is now used everywhere.


The goal of this change seems to include removal of Make as a
dependency for the LTO wrapper used by GCC.


That is definitely not something that really happened in GCC, the only
change that has been done is to make sure that gcc -flto doesn't fail
because of missing make, but missing make will just mean that the
compilation will be significantly slower.



My understanding was that the performance of gcc -flto when using 
something other than make (e.g. ninja) to build was the same whether or 
not you have make installed[1].  Is this correct?


I thought you had to be using make to get the parallelization benefits 
of -flto=auto.


-Tom

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97524#c7


Jakub


___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 03:51:40PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > Well, gcc really should have either weak or strong dependency on make too
> > given that -flto is now used everywhere.
> 
> The goal of this change seems to include removal of Make as a
> dependency for the LTO wrapper used by GCC.

That is definitely not something that really happened in GCC, the only
change that has been done is to make sure that gcc -flto doesn't fail
because of missing make, but missing make will just mean that the
compilation will be significantly slower.

Jakub
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Neal Gompa]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 3:47 PM Jakub Jelinek  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 12:43:13PM -0800, Tom Stellard wrote:
> > > > No, in that case gcc needs to Require: gas, because it is a run-time
> > > > dependency of that package.
> > > >
> > > > CMake will still work if make is not installed.  Packages that use
> > > > cmake + Ninja should require those packages, and packages that use
> > > > cmake + make should require those packages too.
> > >
> > > I don't choose either. I just run cmake and it chooses what to
> > > use as it's default build tool. If I told it to use a specific
> > > build tool then I would see your point, but for the default one
> > > it seems reasonable that it should require it as it has made
> > > the decision to use it.
> > >
> >
> > Ok, I think this is a fair point especially after the f33 change were we are
> > now using cmake --build and cmake --install instead of invoking make
> > directly.
> >
> > The only issue is if cmake changes make to be a weak dependency can we still
> > rely on this?  Do brew builds automatically install weak dependencies?
> >
> > If the change was automated and you did not have to do anything would you
> > still be opposed to having your spec files updated with BuildRequires: make
>
> Well, gcc really should have either weak or strong dependency on make too
> given that -flto is now used everywhere.

The goal of this change seems to include removal of Make as a
dependency for the LTO wrapper used by GCC.



-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 12:43:13PM -0800, Tom Stellard wrote:
> > > No, in that case gcc needs to Require: gas, because it is a run-time
> > > dependency of that package.
> > > 
> > > CMake will still work if make is not installed.  Packages that use
> > > cmake + Ninja should require those packages, and packages that use
> > > cmake + make should require those packages too.
> > 
> > I don't choose either. I just run cmake and it chooses what to
> > use as it's default build tool. If I told it to use a specific
> > build tool then I would see your point, but for the default one
> > it seems reasonable that it should require it as it has made
> > the decision to use it.
> > 
> 
> Ok, I think this is a fair point especially after the f33 change were we are
> now using cmake --build and cmake --install instead of invoking make
> directly.
> 
> The only issue is if cmake changes make to be a weak dependency can we still
> rely on this?  Do brew builds automatically install weak dependencies?
> 
> If the change was automated and you did not have to do anything would you
> still be opposed to having your spec files updated with BuildRequires: make

Well, gcc really should have either weak or strong dependency on make too
given that -flto is now used everywhere.

Jakub
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Neal Gompa]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 3:43 PM Tom Stellard  wrote:
>
> On 11/4/20 3:34 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
> > On 04/11/2020 20:31, Tom Stellard wrote:
> >> On 11/4/20 3:22 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
> >>> On 04/11/2020 19:46, Tom Stellard wrote:
>  On 11/4/20 2:10 PM, Tom Hughes via devel wrote:
> 
> > Also I'm suspicious about the quality of that list because it
> > includes packages of mine that only use make via cmake and which
> > do BR cmake which in turn requires make.
> 
>  For the purposes of this proposal, your packages still need to
>  BuildRequires: make.  I don't want to depend on this kind of
>  indirect dependency to keep things working, because it can be fragile.
> >>>
> >>> So instead I'm supposed to somehow know what tools the tools
> >>> that I use choose to invoke under the covers? Where does that
> >>> insanity end exactly? Do I have to require gas because gcc
> >>> will use it to assemble the code it generates?
> >>>
> >>
> >> No, in that case gcc needs to Require: gas, because it is a run-time
> >> dependency of that package.
> >>
> >> CMake will still work if make is not installed.  Packages that use
> >> cmake + Ninja should require those packages, and packages that use
> >> cmake + make should require those packages too.
> >
> > I don't choose either. I just run cmake and it chooses what to
> > use as it's default build tool. If I told it to use a specific
> > build tool then I would see your point, but for the default one
> > it seems reasonable that it should require it as it has made
> > the decision to use it.
> >
>
> Ok, I think this is a fair point especially after the f33 change were we
> are now using cmake --build and cmake --install instead of invoking make
> directly.
>
> The only issue is if cmake changes make to be a weak dependency can we
> still rely on this?  Do brew builds automatically install weak dependencies?
>

Koji/Brew disables weak dependencies. The weak dependency would be for
developer convenience.

> If the change was automated and you did not have to do anything would
> you still be opposed to having your spec files updated with
> BuildRequires: make
>

You still need BR: make.




-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Tom Stellard]

On 11/4/20 3:34 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:

On 04/11/2020 20:31, Tom Stellard wrote:

On 11/4/20 3:22 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:

On 04/11/2020 19:46, Tom Stellard wrote:

On 11/4/20 2:10 PM, Tom Hughes via devel wrote:


Also I'm suspicious about the quality of that list because it
includes packages of mine that only use make via cmake and which
do BR cmake which in turn requires make.


For the purposes of this proposal, your packages still need to 
BuildRequires: make.  I don't want to depend on this kind of 
indirect dependency to keep things working, because it can be fragile.


So instead I'm supposed to somehow know what tools the tools
that I use choose to invoke under the covers? Where does that
insanity end exactly? Do I have to require gas because gcc
will use it to assemble the code it generates?



No, in that case gcc needs to Require: gas, because it is a run-time
dependency of that package.

CMake will still work if make is not installed.  Packages that use
cmake + Ninja should require those packages, and packages that use
cmake + make should require those packages too.


I don't choose either. I just run cmake and it chooses what to
use as it's default build tool. If I told it to use a specific
build tool then I would see your point, but for the default one
it seems reasonable that it should require it as it has made
the decision to use it.



Ok, I think this is a fair point especially after the f33 change were we 
are now using cmake --build and cmake --install instead of invoking make 
directly.


The only issue is if cmake changes make to be a weak dependency can we 
still rely on this?  Do brew builds automatically install weak dependencies?


If the change was automated and you did not have to do anything would 
you still be opposed to having your spec files updated with 
BuildRequires: make


-Tom


Otherwise if cmake was to change it's default to ninja then
every package would have to be changed not just one...

Tom


___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Tom Hughes via devel]

On 04/11/2020 20:31, Tom Stellard wrote:

On 11/4/20 3:22 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:

On 04/11/2020 19:46, Tom Stellard wrote:

On 11/4/20 2:10 PM, Tom Hughes via devel wrote:


Also I'm suspicious about the quality of that list because it
includes packages of mine that only use make via cmake and which
do BR cmake which in turn requires make.


For the purposes of this proposal, your packages still need to 
BuildRequires: make.  I don't want to depend on this kind of indirect 
dependency to keep things working, because it can be fragile.


So instead I'm supposed to somehow know what tools the tools
that I use choose to invoke under the covers? Where does that
insanity end exactly? Do I have to require gas because gcc
will use it to assemble the code it generates?



No, in that case gcc needs to Require: gas, because it is a run-time
dependency of that package.

CMake will still work if make is not installed.  Packages that use
cmake + Ninja should require those packages, and packages that use
cmake + make should require those packages too.


I don't choose either. I just run cmake and it chooses what to
use as it's default build tool. If I told it to use a specific
build tool then I would see your point, but for the default one
it seems reasonable that it should require it as it has made
the decision to use it.

Otherwise if cmake was to change it's default to ninja then
every package would have to be changed not just one...

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Tom Stellard]

On 11/4/20 3:22 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:

On 04/11/2020 19:46, Tom Stellard wrote:

On 11/4/20 2:10 PM, Tom Hughes via devel wrote:


Also I'm suspicious about the quality of that list because it
includes packages of mine that only use make via cmake and which
do BR cmake which in turn requires make.


For the purposes of this proposal, your packages still need to 
BuildRequires: make.  I don't want to depend on this kind of indirect 
dependency to keep things working, because it can be fragile.


So instead I'm supposed to somehow know what tools the tools
that I use choose to invoke under the covers? Where does that
insanity end exactly? Do I have to require gas because gcc
will use it to assemble the code it generates?



No, in that case gcc needs to Require: gas, because it is a run-time
dependency of that package.

CMake will still work if make is not installed.  Packages that use
cmake + Ninja should require those packages, and packages that use
cmake + make should require those packages too.

-Tom
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Tom Hughes via devel]

On 04/11/2020 19:46, Tom Stellard wrote:

On 11/4/20 2:10 PM, Tom Hughes via devel wrote:


Also I'm suspicious about the quality of that list because it
includes packages of mine that only use make via cmake and which
do BR cmake which in turn requires make.


For the purposes of this proposal, your packages still need to 
BuildRequires: make.  I don't want to depend on this kind of indirect 
dependency to keep things working, because it can be fragile.


So instead I'm supposed to somehow know what tools the tools
that I use choose to invoke under the covers? Where does that
insanity end exactly? Do I have to require gas because gcc
will use it to assemble the code it generates?

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Steven Munroe]

From: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_make_from_BuildRoot
"The packager guidelines will need to
be updated to mention that BuildRequires: make is now required for all
packages that need make."

Seems like using a canon to swat flies. It seems to widely distribute
pain without clearly articulated gain to the community.


Richard Shaw: said Nov 4 12:50pm:
"Or would pulling in autotools/automake/cmake suffice? "

I like this better. Any BuildRequires including libtool and or
autoconf should be able to assume make.
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Tom Stellard]

On 11/4/20 2:10 PM, Tom Hughes via devel wrote:

On 04/11/2020 19:06, Tom Hughes via devel wrote:

On 04/11/2020 18:12, Ben Cotton wrote:


= Phase 1: Analysis =
For this change, we will start by creating a list of all packages that
have a build-time dependency on make.  This will be done by analyzing
spec files and also by rebuilding all packages in Fedora with make
removed from the buildroot to see which packages fail to build.  Once
we have this list, we will remove packages that already have
BuildRequires:make in their spec file, and this final list[1] will be
all the packages that need to be updated in Phase 2.

[1] 
https://github.com/tstellar/fedora-change-make-buildroot/blob/main/needs_br_make.txt 



Could we have a list that includes maintainer names please so that
people who want to can fix their packages before automation gets
less loose on them?


Also I'm suspicious about the quality of that list because it
includes packages of mine that only use make via cmake and which
do BR cmake which in turn requires make.



For the purposes of this proposal, your packages still need to 
BuildRequires: make.  I don't want to depend on this kind of indirect 
dependency to keep things working, because it can be fragile.


-Tom


Tom


___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Tom Stellard]

On 11/4/20 1:50 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:

Is the expectation to explicitly BR: make?



Yes, this is the expectation.  I think this is the safest way to handle 
this.


-Tom


Or would pulling in autotools/automake/cmake suffice?

Thanks,
Richard

___
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


___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Neal Gompa]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 2:20 PM Gary Buhrmaster
 wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 7:15 PM Neal Gompa  wrote:
>
> > When did this happen? CMake should not be requiring Make at runtime,
> > especially now that the CMake macros let you trivially use either Make
> > or Ninja.
>
> rhbz#1862014

That should be downgraded to Recommends. There should *not* be an
explicit dependency on Make by CMake, especially with F33+ macros no
longer specifically mandating it.



-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Gary Buhrmaster]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 7:15 PM Neal Gompa  wrote:

> When did this happen? CMake should not be requiring Make at runtime,
> especially now that the CMake macros let you trivially use either Make
> or Ninja.

rhbz#1862014
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Tom Hughes via devel]

On 04/11/2020 19:14, Neal Gompa wrote:


When did this happen? CMake should not be requiring Make at runtime,
especially now that the CMake macros let you trivially use either Make
or Ninja.


No idea, but "rpm -q --requires cmake" says it does.

And I only sue %cmake macros which is turn invoke cmake which
then I assume then invokes make, so it seems correct to me that
it requires it.

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Gary Buhrmaster]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 6:50 PM Richard Shaw  wrote:
>
> Is the expectation to explicitly BR: make?
>
> Or would pulling in autotools/automake/cmake suffice?

The cmake package currently requires make.  I do
not believe the auto packages requires make,
so you would need to add make explicitly there.

Probably safest to not make assumptions about
what other packages pull in, for that might change
at some point.
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Neal Gompa]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 2:10 PM Tom Hughes via devel
 wrote:
>
> On 04/11/2020 19:06, Tom Hughes via devel wrote:
> > On 04/11/2020 18:12, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >
> >> = Phase 1: Analysis =
> >> For this change, we will start by creating a list of all packages that
> >> have a build-time dependency on make.  This will be done by analyzing
> >> spec files and also by rebuilding all packages in Fedora with make
> >> removed from the buildroot to see which packages fail to build.  Once
> >> we have this list, we will remove packages that already have
> >> BuildRequires:make in their spec file, and this final list[1] will be
> >> all the packages that need to be updated in Phase 2.
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> https://github.com/tstellar/fedora-change-make-buildroot/blob/main/needs_br_make.txt
> >>
> >
> > Could we have a list that includes maintainer names please so that
> > people who want to can fix their packages before automation gets
> > less loose on them?
>
> Also I'm suspicious about the quality of that list because it
> includes packages of mine that only use make via cmake and which
> do BR cmake which in turn requires make.
>

When did this happen? CMake should not be requiring Make at runtime,
especially now that the CMake macros let you trivially use either Make
or Ninja.



-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Petr Šabata]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 7:16 PM Ben Cotton  wrote:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_make_from_BuildRoot
>
> == Summary ==
> This change will remove make from the default buildroot in Koji and mock.

Huge +1 here, by the way.

P
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Petr Šabata]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 7:52 PM Richard Shaw  wrote:
>
> Is the expectation to explicitly BR: make?
>
> Or would pulling in autotools/automake/cmake suffice?

My general approach is that if I call it, or call things in my package
that directly call it, I buildrequire it.

If you do that, you don't have to worry about your build breaking
because of suddenly missing deps when the deps of your deps (all the
way down) change or something like this gets removed from the default
buildroot.

P
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Tom Hughes via devel]

On 04/11/2020 19:06, Tom Hughes via devel wrote:

On 04/11/2020 18:12, Ben Cotton wrote:


= Phase 1: Analysis =
For this change, we will start by creating a list of all packages that
have a build-time dependency on make.  This will be done by analyzing
spec files and also by rebuilding all packages in Fedora with make
removed from the buildroot to see which packages fail to build.  Once
we have this list, we will remove packages that already have
BuildRequires:make in their spec file, and this final list[1] will be
all the packages that need to be updated in Phase 2.

[1] 
https://github.com/tstellar/fedora-change-make-buildroot/blob/main/needs_br_make.txt 



Could we have a list that includes maintainer names please so that
people who want to can fix their packages before automation gets
less loose on them?


Also I'm suspicious about the quality of that list because it
includes packages of mine that only use make via cmake and which
do BR cmake which in turn requires make.

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Tom Hughes via devel]

On 04/11/2020 18:12, Ben Cotton wrote:


= Phase 1: Analysis =
For this change, we will start by creating a list of all packages that
have a build-time dependency on make.  This will be done by analyzing
spec files and also by rebuilding all packages in Fedora with make
removed from the buildroot to see which packages fail to build.  Once
we have this list, we will remove packages that already have
BuildRequires:make in their spec file, and this final list[1] will be
all the packages that need to be updated in Phase 2.

[1] 
https://github.com/tstellar/fedora-change-make-buildroot/blob/main/needs_br_make.txt


Could we have a list that includes maintainer names please so that
people who want to can fix their packages before automation gets
less loose on them?

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
___
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

Re: Fedora 34 Change proposal: Remove make from BuildRoot (System-Wide Change)

[Richard Shaw]

Is the expectation to explicitly BR: make?

Or would pulling in autotools/automake/cmake suffice?

Thanks,
Richard
___
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