Re: [HEADS UP] Replacing %post/%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

[Orcan Ogetbil]

2018-02-14 15:59 GMT-05:00 Igor Gnatenko :
>
> Your options:
>
> * Speak up and tell package names I should not touch because … (you should
> complete this sentence).
> * Fix up packages and tell package names I should not touch because you did
> that already.
> * Tell package names you want to remove ldconfig scriptlets entirely instead
> of replacing them with %ldconfig_scriptlets and get fix **for free**.
> * Ignore this message and get fix **for free**.

> fluidsynth   bsjones pwalter

No need to touch fluidsynth. It is taken care of during the last update.

Best,
Orcan
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [HEADS UP] Replacing %post/%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

[Antonio Trande]

On 14/02/2018 21:59, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> As guidelines changed[0] and now require maintainers who package libraries in
> default library path (/usr/lib, /usr/lib64) to use %ldconfig_scriptlets in 
> case
> they want spec file to be compatible with all Fedora/EPEL versions or drop 
> them
> entirely if they maintain one-spec-per-branch.
> 
> After branching (should be on 2018-02-20) completes + week (2018-02-26,
> probably later), I'm going to replace your scriptlets to follow guidelines in
> master branch (aka F29) with safest option available -- %ldconfig_scriptlets.
> The whole purpose of this is to make installation of packages FASTER and
> obviously to comply with guidelines. Most of packages would be possible to
> automate, however some would not and you would need to deal with it youself.
> 
> All packages which implement mentioned macro are already in stable updates
> (redhat-rpm-config for Fedora and epel-rpm-macros for EPEL).
> 
> Your options:
> 
> * Speak up and tell package names I should not touch because … (you should
> complete this sentence).
> * Fix up packages and tell package names I should not touch because you did
> that already.
> * Tell package names you want to remove ldconfig scriptlets entirely instead
> of replacing them with %ldconfig_scriptlets and get fix **for free**.
> * Ignore this message and get fix **for free**.
> 
> Preliminary list of packages is following (I omited packages which have
> ld.so.conf entry and probably added some unnecessary ones):
> 
> Maintainers by package:
> ...
> sagitter   MUMPS SuperLU SuperLUMT avogadro coin-or-Bonmin coin-or-CoinUtils
> coin-or-Couenne coin-or-Ipopt coin-or-OS giac gnustep-base gtengine libavc1394
> libdv libmodplug libnuml libsbml libsbw libsedml lightning metis mld2p4
> molequeue mp psblas3 qrmumps qwtplot3d qwtplot3d-qt5 spglib wildmagic5
> ...

Fixed.

-- 
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x5E212EE1D35568BE
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Re: [HEADS UP] Replacing %post/%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

[nicolas . mailhot]

De: "Fabio Valentini" 

> Additionally, there are lots of packages that look like their
> maintainer hasn't touched them in years (for example, the only git
> commits are from mass rebuilds),

Actually it's hard to find the motivation to touch a package just for a little 
syntactic cleanup. Mass cleanups are much better on the ego of the person that 
does them, he can feel he accomplished something, since that's the mass effect 
that makes them worthwhile.

Thank you Igor!

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [HEADS UP] Replacing %post/%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

[Fabio Valentini]

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 11:02 AM, Remi Collet  wrote:
> Le 17/02/2018 à 10:05, Igor Gnatenko a écrit :
>> On Sat, 2018-02-17 at 07:08 +0100, Remi Collet wrote:
>>> Le 16/02/2018 à 15:18, Mark Wielaard a écrit :
>>
 I had to tweak it a little though so the spec could still be build
 older RHEL or Fedora (I reuse the spec to build on RHEL and with SCL).
 Maybe something like the following is better for people who have a spec
 file they might reuse on systems that might not have this macro:

 # Only the latest Fedora and EPEL have these scriptlets,
 # older, or not up to date, Fedora and plain RHEL don't.
 %if 0%{?ldconfig_scriptlets:1}
 %ldconfig_scriptlets libs
 %ldconfig_scriptlets libelf
 %else
 %post libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
 %postun libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
 %post libelf -p /sbin/ldconfig
 %postun libelf -p /sbin/ldconfig
 %endif
>>
>>> Even simpler
>>
>>> %if 0%{?fedora} < 28
>>> %post   libs   -p /sbin/ldconfig
>>> %postun libs -  p /sbin/ldconfig
>>> %post   libelf -p /sbin/ldconfig
>>> %postun libelf -p /sbin/ldconfig
>>> %endif
>>
>> This is wrong because. This macro is defined on all EPEL and Fedora, so 
>> Mark's
>> way is correct (almost).
>>
>>> Because the ldconfig_scriptlets stuff only work in koji, not in other
>>> build system (brew, cbs, ...)
>>
>> This is not a problem for Fedora.
>
> This is exactly what Mark message was about (older RHEL or Fedora)
>
> Definitively we have a very different vision of packaging.
>
> You are trying to impose "your vision" as the only acceptable one
> without any respect for other packagers which may have different vision
> and different goal.

I don't understand that argument. What goal other than "providing good
packages for fedora" could there be for fedora packagers?

> And this is probably the reason of some much discussions about recent
> changes.
>
> And this create so much frustration on my side (and perhaps some
> others), BTW, we will never agree.
>
> And another point, message for all packagers, you don't have to take
> care of maintaining your package, Igor the robot will do the work for you.

That's neither a fair towords Igor, nor productive criticism.
While I agree that the changes could have been communicated better, I
am glad that _finally_ someone is cleaning up all the unnecessary
cruft that has accumulated in fedora .spec files.

Additionally, there are lots of packages that look like their
maintainer hasn't touched them in years (for example, the only git
commits are from mass rebuilds), so some maintainers _already_ don't
take care of maintaining their packages and adapting them to comply
with the current Packaging Guidelines. Doing incremental mass cleanups
and fixups seems to be the only workable solution to bring them
(barely) up to current Guidelines.

> IMHO, we should explain things, explain why they are needed, and
> encourage people to understand and do their work.
>
>
>
>
> Remi, terribly disappointed by the way the project goes.
>
>
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [HEADS UP] Replacing %post/%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

[Roberto Ragusa]

On 02/16/2018 10:35 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>> "RR" == Roberto Ragusa  writes:

> RR> Was that a valid consideration? Has something changed on that front?
> 
> It was, and packages will now fail to build (via brp-ldconfig) if they
> don't package those symlinks.  Though in practice packages which did not
> do this would have been exceedingly rare anyway and when I checked the
> package set looking for examples a year ago I think I only turned up two
> examples.

Thank you for clarifying this.
So in theory without ldconfig symlinks could have remained misconfigured,
but nowadays packages are forced to take care of links themselves.
Indeed, even in the old world, my upgrade went fine, I can't exclude that
some scripting may have failed, but I never noticed any unexpected issue.

Regards.

-- 
   Roberto Ragusamail at robertoragusa.it
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [HEADS UP] Replacing %post/%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

[Remi Collet]

Le 17/02/2018 à 10:05, Igor Gnatenko a écrit :
> On Sat, 2018-02-17 at 07:08 +0100, Remi Collet wrote:
>> Le 16/02/2018 à 15:18, Mark Wielaard a écrit :
> 
>>> I had to tweak it a little though so the spec could still be build
>>> older RHEL or Fedora (I reuse the spec to build on RHEL and with SCL).
>>> Maybe something like the following is better for people who have a spec
>>> file they might reuse on systems that might not have this macro:
>>>
>>> # Only the latest Fedora and EPEL have these scriptlets,
>>> # older, or not up to date, Fedora and plain RHEL don't.
>>> %if 0%{?ldconfig_scriptlets:1}
>>> %ldconfig_scriptlets libs
>>> %ldconfig_scriptlets libelf
>>> %else
>>> %post libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
>>> %postun libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
>>> %post libelf -p /sbin/ldconfig
>>> %postun libelf -p /sbin/ldconfig
>>> %endif
> 
>> Even simpler
> 
>> %if 0%{?fedora} < 28
>> %post   libs   -p /sbin/ldconfig
>> %postun libs -  p /sbin/ldconfig
>> %post   libelf -p /sbin/ldconfig
>> %postun libelf -p /sbin/ldconfig
>> %endif
> 
> This is wrong because. This macro is defined on all EPEL and Fedora, so Mark's
> way is correct (almost).
> 
>> Because the ldconfig_scriptlets stuff only work in koji, not in other
>> build system (brew, cbs, ...)
> 
> This is not a problem for Fedora.

This is exactly what Mark message was about (older RHEL or Fedora)

Definitively we have a very different vision of packaging.

You are trying to impose "your vision" as the only acceptable one
without any respect for other packagers which may have different vision
and different goal.

And this is probably the reason of some much discussions about recent
changes.

And this create so much frustration on my side (and perhaps some
others), BTW, we will never agree.

And another point, message for all packagers, you don't have to take
care of maintaining your package, Igor the robot will do the work for you.

IMHO, we should explain things, explain why they are needed, and
encourage people to understand and do their work.




Remi, terribly disappointed by the way the project goes.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [HEADS UP] Replacing %post/%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

[Igor Gnatenko]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On Fri, 2018-02-16 at 15:18 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi Igor,
> 
> On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 21:59 +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> > Your options:
> > 
> > * Speak up and tell package names I should not touch because … (you should
> > complete this sentence).
> > * Fix up packages and tell package names I should not touch because you did
> > that already.
> > * Tell package names you want to remove ldconfig scriptlets entirely
> > instead
> > of replacing them with %ldconfig_scriptlets and get fix **for free**.
> > * Ignore this message and get fix **for free**.
> > [...]
> > elfutils aoliva fche jakub jankratochvil mjw pmachata roland
> 
> I saw you already fixed this one up, thanks.
> 
> Although for some reason I didn't get any notification about this
> change.
> 
> I had to tweak it a little though so the spec could still be build
> older RHEL or Fedora (I reuse the spec to build on RHEL and with SCL).
> Maybe something like the following is better for people who have a spec
> file they might reuse on systems that might not have this macro:

Generally this is bad advise because people who maintain packages in Fedora are
supposed to maintain them only for Fedora and EPEL. Note that all macros are
available in all supported Fedora, so you don't need such conditions.

> # Only the latest Fedora and EPEL have these scriptlets,

This is noy completely true, **all** Fedora and **all** EPEL have these
scriptlets.

> # older, or not up to date, Fedora and plain RHEL don't.
> %if 0%{?ldconfig_scriptlets:1}

%if %{defined ldconfig_scriptlets}

I think this is more readable.

> %ldconfig_scriptlets libs
> %ldconfig_scriptlets libelf
> %else
> %post libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
> %postun libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
> %post libelf -p /sbin/ldconfig
> %postun libelf -p /sbin/ldconfig
> %endif
- -- 
- -Igor Gnatenko
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
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=PNVr
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [HEADS UP] Replacing %post/%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

[Igor Gnatenko]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On Sat, 2018-02-17 at 07:08 +0100, Remi Collet wrote:
> Le 16/02/2018 à 15:18, Mark Wielaard a écrit :
> 
> > I had to tweak it a little though so the spec could still be build
> > older RHEL or Fedora (I reuse the spec to build on RHEL and with SCL).
> > Maybe something like the following is better for people who have a spec
> > file they might reuse on systems that might not have this macro:
> > 
> > # Only the latest Fedora and EPEL have these scriptlets,
> > # older, or not up to date, Fedora and plain RHEL don't.
> > %if 0%{?ldconfig_scriptlets:1}
> > %ldconfig_scriptlets libs
> > %ldconfig_scriptlets libelf
> > %else
> > %post libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
> > %postun libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
> > %post libelf -p /sbin/ldconfig
> > %postun libelf -p /sbin/ldconfig
> > %endif
> 
> Even simpler
> 
> %if 0%{?fedora} < 28
> %post   libs   -p /sbin/ldconfig
> %postun libs -  p /sbin/ldconfig
> %post   libelf -p /sbin/ldconfig
> %postun libelf -p /sbin/ldconfig
> %endif

This is wrong because. This macro is defined on all EPEL and Fedora, so Mark's
way is correct (almost).

> Because the ldconfig_scriptlets stuff only work in koji, not in other
> build system (brew, cbs, ...)

This is not a problem for Fedora.
- -- 
- -Igor Gnatenko
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
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=AfcB
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [HEADS UP] Replacing %post/%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

[Remi Collet]

Le 16/02/2018 à 15:18, Mark Wielaard a écrit :

> I had to tweak it a little though so the spec could still be build
> older RHEL or Fedora (I reuse the spec to build on RHEL and with SCL).
> Maybe something like the following is better for people who have a spec
> file they might reuse on systems that might not have this macro:
> 
> # Only the latest Fedora and EPEL have these scriptlets,
> # older, or not up to date, Fedora and plain RHEL don't.
> %if 0%{?ldconfig_scriptlets:1}
> %ldconfig_scriptlets libs
> %ldconfig_scriptlets libelf
> %else
> %post libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
> %postun libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
> %post libelf -p /sbin/ldconfig
> %postun libelf -p /sbin/ldconfig
> %endif

Even simpler

%if 0%{?fedora} < 28
%post   libs   -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun libs -  p /sbin/ldconfig
%post   libelf -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun libelf -p /sbin/ldconfig
%endif

Because the ldconfig_scriptlets stuff only work in koji, not in other
build system (brew, cbs, ...)

Remi


P.S. the condition will, perhaps, need to be fixed for el-8, but for now
nobody can say what will be in this distro.

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Mark
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> 
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [HEADS UP] Replacing %post/%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> "RR" == Roberto Ragusa  writes:

RR> When I proposed this kind of optimization in some mailing list
RR> (maybe this one?!), I was answered that my method was not entirely
RR> safe because there could have been problems for some rpm scripts
RR> calling libraries that had been just upgraded (e.g. perl libraries)
RR> without a proper ldconfig refresh.

The cache is just a cache, but ldconfig has other functionality besides
generating the cache.  It also creates the various symlinks to the .so*
files.

RR> Was that a valid consideration? Has something changed on that front?

It was, and packages will now fail to build (via brp-ldconfig) if they
don't package those symlinks.  Though in practice packages which did not
do this would have been exceedingly rare anyway and when I checked the
package set looking for examples a year ago I think I only turned up two
examples.

 - J<
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [HEADS UP] Replacing %post/%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi Igor,

On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 21:59 +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> Your options:
> 
> * Speak up and tell package names I should not touch because … (you should
> complete this sentence).
> * Fix up packages and tell package names I should not touch because you did
> that already.
> * Tell package names you want to remove ldconfig scriptlets entirely instead
> of replacing them with %ldconfig_scriptlets and get fix **for free**.
> * Ignore this message and get fix **for free**.
> [...]
> elfutils aoliva fche jakub jankratochvil mjw pmachata roland

I saw you already fixed this one up, thanks.

Although for some reason I didn't get any notification about this
change.

I had to tweak it a little though so the spec could still be build
older RHEL or Fedora (I reuse the spec to build on RHEL and with SCL).
Maybe something like the following is better for people who have a spec
file they might reuse on systems that might not have this macro:

# Only the latest Fedora and EPEL have these scriptlets,
# older, or not up to date, Fedora and plain RHEL don't.
%if 0%{?ldconfig_scriptlets:1}
%ldconfig_scriptlets libs
%ldconfig_scriptlets libelf
%else
%post libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
%post libelf -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun libelf -p /sbin/ldconfig
%endif

Cheers,

Mark
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [HEADS UP] Replacing %post/%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

[Roberto Ragusa]

On 02/14/2018 10:14 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:

> I'd be super-interested in benchmarks comparing before and after
> install times. I guess since the plan is to do this _after_ the mass
> rebuild, we'll need to wait until after the *next* rebuild to see how
> much impact this has.

Many years ago, I remember a Fedora upgrade (from version 4 to 5, I think)
on a SATA disk on a Dual CPU PowerMac G5 (great machine at that time).
The upgrade was progressing incredibly slow, and I was able to discover
that every lib package upgrade was triggering ldconfig and spending a lot of 
time.
So I renamed /sbin/ldconfig away (replaced with a stub or something), and speed
went way up. After the RPM upgrade phase, I restored ldconfig and run it 
manually.

When I proposed this kind of optimization in some mailing list (maybe this 
one?!),
I was answered that my method was not entirely safe because there could have 
been
problems for some rpm scripts calling libraries that had been just upgraded
(e.g. perl libraries) without a proper ldconfig refresh.

Was that a valid consideration? Has something changed on that front?
I was convinced that ldconfig was a sort of cache, not critical to actually
find libraries.

Regards.

-- 
   Roberto Ragusamail at robertoragusa.it
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [HEADS UP] Replacing %post/%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

[Jonathan Wakely]

On 14/02/18 21:59 +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:

* Fix up packages and tell package names I should not touch because you did
that already.



boostdenisarnaud jwakely


Done in 
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/boost/c/4c456d525c8779b5ea8ef8b2031ad4eab6b66c61?branch=master


mysql++  jwakely rombobeorn


I've created a pull request for Björn to approve:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mysql++/pull-request/1

___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [HEADS UP] Replacing %post/%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

[Pierre-Yves Chibon]

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 08:12:27PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
>It took me personally more than few years to come to conclusion that rpm
>packages scriptlets idea is wrong.

That exact sentence makes me wonder, did you watch the videos from Will at flock
or DevConf?
Because what you're talking about here, is *exactly* what Will is trying to
address, to the dots.

So let's stop playing the game of I think I know better than you do because I
know what I know while I can only assume what you know.


Pierre
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [HEADS UP] Replacing %post/%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

[Tomasz Kłoczko]

On 15 February 2018 at 15:19, David Shea  wrote:
[..]

> Can we maybe step back and give other developers the benefit of the doubt
> instead of immediately attacking an attempt to provide information? This is
> really unnecessarily hostile.
>

What I wrote is not about hostility or attacking anyone.
It is only pure conclusion about Will current understanding of the subject.
So what I wrote it is only clear signal from my side that Will (as probably
many other people here) still do not understand where all those changes are
going.
I'm sure that sooner or later he will understand
People are different and by definition each of us are able to understand
different things with different speed.
I'm sure that probably someone will be able to find some other subject
which I will have difficulty to understand .. not because I'm stupid or
idiot but because I have exact baggage of my current knowledge and
experience.
The same is with Will .. he is *ONLY* trying to understand the subject and
so far he been failing trying to use words which have no meaning in context
of exactly scriptlets subject.
So guys .. if you still do not understand nature of this change *just
please give yourselves a little more time* :)

I really do not understand what more is possible to say about remove
ldconfig execution from %post/%postun scriptlets than only this that this
change is about remove bits which only elongates install/upgrade time, That
is really all ..  just one sentence.

I've been really thinking that as long as Igor accepted my and few other
people arguments, and started removing ldconfig scriptlets critical mass of
the understanding has been reached.
Igor even wrote about this change some documentation so we don't need to
discuss anything here. Everything is explained in this doc :)
In other words: trying to discuss anything here/now is kind of result of
miscommunication, misunderstanding or even disrespect to time and work
which Igor spend on prepare to this change.

So "Roma locuta, causa finita". Fedora rawhide *already* incorporated
ldconfig scriptlets reduction.
I see some overuse some %ldconfig* macros but this could be corrected in
next few iterations.

What has been already done with ldconfig it was *only* one step on
evolutionary change of the state of all Fedora packages on the path going
to state where it will be no per package scriptlets!!!
Such change cannot be done by revolution because many Fedora packages are
sill not able to spot that all those per package scriptlets is possible to
abandon (if few other things will be changed outside packaging layer).
Other reason why this cannot bi introduced in revolutionary way is related
to "death by thousands cuts" effect.
As I wrote here only way of fixing results of this effect is *ONLY* undo
one by one each of those single cuts.

My plan is not to fight with believers but show by reduction one by one
sets of the scriptets that all together those scriptles could be removed ..
(again: if few other bits could be added outside of pure packaging or if
rpm as PM tool will incorporate few functionalities which already has been
integrated into PM like Solaris IPS).
Smaller set of those scriplets than easier will be spot that *they are not
needed*.

It took me personally more than few years to come to conclusion that rpm
packages scriptlets idea is wrong.
Now whole Fedora community is progressing on the same path even faster than
it was in my case.

So stay tuned and please be a bit more patient ..  (even if you still do
not understand whole/wider picture).

klocek
-- 
Tomasz Kłoczko | LinkedIn: *http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH *
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [HEADS UP] Replacing %post/%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

[Miroslav Suchý]

Dne 14.2.2018 v 21:59 Igor Gnatenko napsal(a):
> msuchy abrt satyr

* You should not touch because I done the change in upstream, it will be 
propagated during next release.

Miroslav



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [HEADS UP] Replacing %post/%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

[David Shea]

> Determinism level is about level of *variations* of the results on
> repeating the same operations starting from exactly the same initial state.
> Executing ldconfig after each package libraries installation/upgrade or
> executing the same ldconfig only one time after install/upgrade libraries
> batch still produces *exactly* the same final result. It does not change
> anything in context of reliability as well.

The fact that ldconfig is being executed by an arbitrary, user-written shell 
script is exactly what makes it non-introspectable and non-deterministic. 
Running %post -p /sbin/ldconfig is the most common case, but it might also be 
part of a larger %post/%postun script. It might be in a conditional. It might 
be expanded from another macro. It might be executed by a helper script. It 
might be executed from lua. And since shell (and lua) is a turing complete 
language, and since on top of that the scripts can be modified by arbitrary 
macros that can only be evaluated by executing every shell script embedded in a 
spec file, it's impossible to look at a spec file and determine exactly what it 
is doing, and exactly what it is doing is dependent upon the environment.

Can we maybe step back and give other developers the benefit of the doubt 
instead of immediately attacking an attempt to provide information? This is 
really unnecessarily hostile. 
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [HEADS UP] Replacing %post/%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

[Robert-André Mauchin]

On mercredi 14 février 2018 21:59:27 CET Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> * Tell package names you want to remove ldconfig scriptlets entirely instead
> of replacing them with %ldconfig_scriptlets and get fix **for free**.

I wish you remove the scriplets entirely for Rawhide only on my packages:

eclipseo   cmrt libfilteraudio toxcore webkit2-sharp

Thanks!

Robert-André.

___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [HEADS UP] Replacing %post/%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

[Tomasz Kłoczko]

On 14 February 2018 at 23:26, Will Woods  wrote:
[..]

> I don't think this single change will make a huge difference within
> the existing ecosystem, but I think it's an important step in a larger
> shift toward make package installation & image composition a)
> introspectable and b) deterministic, so that we _can_ make
> installs/composes faster and more reliable.
>

No offence but are you sure that you know meaning of the words which you
are trying to use?
Longer install time still provides *exactly* the same determinism level as
shorter install time.
Determinism level is about level of *variations* of the results on
repeating the same operations starting from exactly the same initial state.
Executing ldconfig after each package libraries installation/upgrade or
executing the same ldconfig only one time after install/upgrade libraries
batch still produces *exactly* the same final result. It does not change
anything in context of reliability as well.
And .. "introspectable" -> capable of being observed by introspection.
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/introspection

In other words: replace per package scriplets with ldconfig execution and
replace it by per whole transaction of packages operations one time
executed ldconfig has nothing to do with introspectability, determinism or
reliability.
It is only about total *time* of whole transaction in context of use
packages without such scriptlets .. only this and nothing more.
Remove those scriplets provides additionally *simpler/shorter* packages
spec files.

[1] If you want to know more about the proposed Scriptlet Reforms you
> could watch the recording from DevConf:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE-8ZRISFqA#t=2m33


It is funny and at the same time really creepy to see someone who is trying
to explain "scriptlets reform" by someone who doesn't know that there are
other packaging software which have *NO packages scriptlrts at all* (look:
IPS).

kloczek
-- 
Tomasz Kłoczko | LinkedIn: *http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH *
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [HEADS UP] Replacing %post/%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 14.2.2018 v 21:59 Igor Gnatenko napsal(a):
>
> * Speak up and tell package names I should not touch because … (you should
> complete this sentence).
> * Fix up packages and tell package names I should not touch because
> you did
> that already.
> * Tell package names you want to remove ldconfig scriptlets entirely
> instead
> of replacing them with %ldconfig_scriptlets and get fix **for free**.
> * Ignore this message and get fix **for free**.


> ruby jstribny mmorsi mtasaka ruby-packagers-sig
> skottler vondruch vondruch

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/c/72c55bdcb29463642399ea365230a8b11c5c7842?branch=master


V.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [HEADS UP] Replacing %post/%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

[Will Woods]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Matthew Miller
 wrote:
> I'd be super-interested in benchmarks comparing before and after
> install times. I guess since the plan is to do this _after_ the mass
> rebuild, we'll need to wait until after the *next* rebuild to see how
> much impact this has.

I don't think this single change will make a huge difference within
the existing ecosystem, but I think it's an important step in a larger
shift toward make package installation & image composition a)
introspectable and b) deterministic, so that we _can_ make
installs/composes faster and more reliable.

I talked about all the reasons eliminating/reducing scriptlets is a
good idea (and how we can actually do it) at Flock and at DevConf[1],
but since you're asking about speed specifically, I can say that with
the weldr[2] proof-of-concept tooling (which skips scriptlets) we can
build a system image in about 6 seconds[3], where the current tools
took 5+ minutes to build an image with the same contents[4].

So: before-and-after install times within Fedora probably won't change
much immediately, but these kinds of changes are important to enable
future work that will eventually give us dramatically faster and more
reliable tooling.

-w

[1] If you want to know more about the proposed Scriptlet Reforms you
could watch the recording from DevConf:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE-8ZRISFqA#t=2m33
(Or: just ask me to explain more and I'll be all too happy to talk about it!)
[2] http://weldr.io/
[3] I played a short recorded demo showing this during the talk,
10m52s in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE-8ZRISFqA#t=10m52
[4] To be fair, those numbers are from comparisons I ran by hand 6
months ago. But we'll start doing regular benchmarks after we've
finished a few missing bits and landed the code in Fedora.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [HEADS UP] Replacing %post/%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

[Matthew Miller]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 09:59:27PM +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> The whole purpose of this is to make installation of packages FASTER and
> obviously to comply with guidelines. Most of packages would be possible to
> automate, however some would not and you would need to deal with it youself.

I'd be super-interested in benchmarks comparing before and after
install times. I guess since the plan is to do this _after_ the mass
rebuild, we'll need to wait until after the *next* rebuild to see how
much impact this has.


-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org