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
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:
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
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
* 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
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
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
* 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
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
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
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
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
* 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
--
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
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
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
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
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
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
- 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
vembre 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
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
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.
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
* 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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.Â
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
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:
>
> >
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
___
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
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 --
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
57 matches
Mail list logo
