On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 07:52:29PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> Really I'd be fine with a compiler in the bigger universe - or,
> perhaps (NOT actually proposing this, we coordinating between the WGs
> already requires enough work) in a "development tools" product.
It doesn't necessarily need to
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 05:49:03PM +0100, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> Analyzed the BRs more closely and produced some graphs for your viewing
> pleasure:
> http://www.harald-hoyer.de/2014/01/14/self-hosting-fedora-base/
Beautiful! Well, kind of ugly. But it's neat to see!
Also humorous that graphviz
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) said:
>> Actually, even more generally - why a self-hosting Base at all? It
>> would clearly be absurd for the kernel to be self-hosting, and clearly
>> we want "the Fedora universe" to be self-hosting. Why i
Analyzed the BRs more closely and produced some graphs for your viewing
pleasure:
http://www.harald-hoyer.de/2014/01/14/self-hosting-fedora-base/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproje
Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) said:
> >> During last weeks Base WG discussion about package set and self hosting
> >> of Base we came to a point where especially the self hosting of Base
> >> would currently look absurd as we'd require more than 2000 components to
> >> do so.
> >
> > Once you red
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-12-12 at 18:50 +0100, Phil Knirsch wrote:
>> Hi everyone.
>>
>> During last weeks Base WG discussion about package set and self hosting
>> of Base we came to a point where especially the self hosting of Base
>> would currently l
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 12:09:34PM +0100, Phil Knirsch wrote:
> On 12/15/2013 11:54 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:20:50PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >>Dne 12.12.2013 18:50, Phil Knirsch napsal(a):
> >>>
> >>>Initiate build requires cleanup for base related packages in
Hi,
On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 16:28 -0600, Jon wrote:
> To reduce size, complexity, save time.
That's quite vague.
> What do you mean by "*enforcing*", or how would you imagine that happening?
My original email contained a total of 3 sentences, and you didn't reply
to the second sentence, which an
> If not, what's the point of this initiative?
To reduce size, complexity, save time.
What do you mean by "*enforcing*", or how would you imagine that happening?
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-12-12 at 18:50 +0100, Phil Knirsch wrote:
>> Hi everyone.
>>
>> D
On Thu, 2013-12-12 at 18:50 +0100, Phil Knirsch wrote:
> Hi everyone.
>
> During last weeks Base WG discussion about package set and self hosting
> of Base we came to a point where especially the self hosting of Base
> would currently look absurd as we'd require more than 2000 components to
> d
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 12:15:39 +0100, Phil Knirsch wrote:
> Right, but shouldn't that then lead to the package building fine but
> the binary packages would miss some requires?
How would it miss requires? foo-devel should Requires: bar-devel (see
the guidelines[1]), so you'll get it, but the pac
On 12/13/2013 03:34 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Phil Knirsch wrote:
Famous last words: Can't be that hard to write a script that compares 2
builds that they provide the have the same provides and requires and
filelists. :)
Try /usr/bin/rpmdiff first...
Great i
On 12/14/2013 03:27 PM, Ben Boeckel wrote:
On Fri, 13 Dec, 2013 at 13:41:55 GMT, Phil Knirsch wrote:
Yea, I suspect both could be combined though in a script that gradually
adds new BRs to a package and then iterates over adding and removing BRs
until it produces equivalent output (not identical
On 12/14/2013 02:25 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 14:45 +0100, Phil Knirsch wrote:
Famous last words: Can't be that hard to write a script that compares 2
builds that they provide the have the same provides and requires and
filelists. :)
That's still not really enough; that
On 12/15/2013 11:54 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:20:50PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 12.12.2013 18:50, Phil Knirsch napsal(a):
Initiate build requires cleanup for base related packages in
Fedora working with maintainers and the community. The goal is to
reduce the
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 09:04:21 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Patches welcome. It's only 905 lines of code.
Probably not from me; most of my packages are on the small side (or are
Haskell which cabal-rpm handles the dependencies for).
> In the original case in this thread, we're interested
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:39:16AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 15.12.2013 11:55, Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a):
> >On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 10:57:00AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> >>On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:20:50PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >>>* It might be interesting to have some script,
Dne 15.12.2013 11:55, Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a):
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 10:57:00AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:20:50PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
* It might be interesting to have some script, which tries to audit
BR, e.g. it removes all BR first and then adds the
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 06:31:56PM -0500, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 22:12:09 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > TBH I don't think that's necessarily a bug. As long as B-devel
> > Requires C-devel, and if A isn't directly including headers from
> > C-devel, it seems fine for A
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 22:12:09 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> TBH I don't think that's necessarily a bug. As long as B-devel
> Requires C-devel, and if A isn't directly including headers from
> C-devel, it seems fine for A not to BuildRequire C-devel.
I was getting at C-devel being a BR is
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 09:48:40PM +, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Dec, 2013 at 10:55:41 GMT, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > auto-buildrequires (http://people.redhat.com/~rjones/auto-buildrequires/)
> > uses an LD_PRELOAD hack to find out what BuildRequires are packages
> > are actually touch
On Sun, 15 Dec, 2013 at 10:55:41 GMT, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> auto-buildrequires (http://people.redhat.com/~rjones/auto-buildrequires/)
> uses an LD_PRELOAD hack to find out what BuildRequires are packages
> are actually touched during the build. Therefore it does not suffer
> from this proble
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 10:57:00AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:20:50PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > * It might be interesting to have some script, which tries to audit
> > BR, e.g. it removes all BR first and then adds them back as they are
> > required. This could re
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:20:50PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 12.12.2013 18:50, Phil Knirsch napsal(a):
> >
> >Initiate build requires cleanup for base related packages in
> >Fedora working with maintainers and the community. The goal is to
> >reduce the number of self-hosting packages require
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 17:25:49 -0800,
Adam Williamson wrote:
That's still not really enough; that metadata doesn't express anything
*close* to all the possible capabilities of a package. Not saying this
isn't a good idea, just that it should involve careful manual double
checking of compose
On Fri, 13 Dec, 2013 at 13:41:55 GMT, Phil Knirsch wrote:
> Yea, I suspect both could be combined though in a script that gradually
> adds new BRs to a package and then iterates over adding and removing BRs
> until it produces equivalent output (not identical as thats kinda hard
> to verify and
On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 14:45 +0100, Phil Knirsch wrote:
> Famous last words: Can't be that hard to write a script that compares 2
> builds that they provide the have the same provides and requires and
> filelists. :)
That's still not really enough; that metadata doesn't express anything
*close*
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:20:50PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> * It might be interesting to have some script, which tries to audit
> BR, e.g. it removes all BR first and then adds them back as they are
> required. This could reveal some BR which are actually not needed
> anymore, but are listed amo
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Phil Knirsch wrote:
>
> Famous last words: Can't be that hard to write a script that compares 2
> builds that they provide the have the same provides and requires and
> filelists. :)
Try /usr/bin/rpmdiff first...
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.or
Dne 13.12.2013 14:41, Phil Knirsch napsal(a):
On 12/13/2013 12:20 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 12.12.2013 18:50, Phil Knirsch napsal(a):
Initiate build requires cleanup for base related packages in Fedora
working with maintainers and the community. The goal is to reduce the
number of self-hostin
On 12/13/2013 02:31 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:20:50 +0100,
Vít Ondruch wrote:
* It might be interesting to have some script, which tries to audit
BR, e.g. it removes all BR first and then adds them back as they are
required. This could reveal some BR which are ac
On 12/13/2013 12:20 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 12.12.2013 18:50, Phil Knirsch napsal(a):
Initiate build requires cleanup for base related packages in Fedora
working with maintainers and the community. The goal is to reduce the
number of self-hosting packages required for Base from currently ove
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:20:50 +0100,
Vít Ondruch wrote:
* It might be interesting to have some script, which tries to audit
BR, e.g. it removes all BR first and then adds them back as they are
required. This could reveal some BR which are actually not needed
anymore, but are listed amon
Dne 12.12.2013 18:50, Phil Knirsch napsal(a):
Initiate build requires cleanup for base related packages in Fedora
working with maintainers and the community. The goal is to reduce the
number of self-hosting packages required for Base from currently over
2000 packages.
Just a few (probably s
On 12/12/2013 09:00 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 06:50:31PM +0100, Phil Knirsch wrote:
Now, to figure our how the build chains for these packages look like
i've cobbled together a (really bad) hack using python and
repoclosure that basically takes a set of packages as an inp
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 06:50:31PM +0100, Phil Knirsch wrote:
> Now, to figure our how the build chains for these packages look like
> i've cobbled together a (really bad) hack using python and
> repoclosure that basically takes a set of packages as an input
> (actually a set of requirements) and t
Hi everyone.
During last weeks Base WG discussion about package set and self hosting
of Base we came to a point where especially the self hosting of Base
would currently look absurd as we'd require more than 2000 components to
do so.
For that reason we'd like to propose the following initiat
37 matches
Mail list logo
