On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 7:28 AM Igor Gnatenko <ignatenkobrain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > MayBe I …(can do something useful)? > > Hello, > > We've been discussing some (hopefully) nice idea with Mikolaj, Neal and Jakub how we could improve packager (and user) experience and we have some proposal which will be described below. > > We would like to ask you to read it, understand it and ask us any questions you have. From the Fedora Infrastructure we would like to ask for some machines to implement this idea (you can find some more information in "Implementation details" part). > > I would like to apologize for HTML email, but it is much easier to have it that way to have better visibility and reading easiness. > > Feel free to reply to this email or comment in google doc (there is a link on the bottom). > > Proposal Owners > > Mikolaj Izdebski (mizdebsk) - Java SIG, Fedora infrastructure > > Igor Gnatenko (ignatenkobrain) - Rust SIG, Golang SIG, Neuro SIG, RPM and libsolv contributor > > Neal Gompa (ngompa) - Rust SIG, Golang SIG, RPM contributor > > Jakub Čajka (jcajka) - Golang SIG, Container SIG > > > This proposal aligns with the objective of improving the packager experience by developing a platform whereby the proposal owners and others can experiment with improvements that can be funneled back into the official production infrastructure. > > Problems > > Problem №1: Build-only packages > > Some ecosystems have many build-only packages (packages which are used to build other packages, without having them installed on end-user systems). Those ecosystems include Java, Rust and Go. > > > It is extremely hard to keep up maintaining them due to lack of time/people. Upstreams are usually changing quickly (sometimes when you update just one such package, you’d need to update tens of the dependencies). Few facts about such packages: > > They are almost always outdated in released versions of distribution; > > They are often FTBFS (e.g. because there was compiler update but not package update, broken deps, broken APIs due to deps rebases, …). > > > In Rust ecosystem, we abuse Rawhide to build and store such packages there and then generate end-user application (e.g. ripgrep) which uses some of those packages and produces binary for all supported releases. Those applications have high quality and are supported. > > Rawhide gating makes this much more complicated because builds appear in buildroot slower, updating group of packages would need side tags and it’s just painful to work with. > > https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2068 > > > And, after all, those packages shouldn’t be shipped to users. > > Problem №2: Testing of new rpm/koji/mock features/configuration > > When developing new features in RPM (e.g. rich dependencies) or testing different Koji configuration (e.g. removing gcc/gcc-c++ from the buildroot), it is required to make custom configuration and try building things. > > Problem №3: Developing modules > > Modules are built in MBS as a single unit. It is hard to develop big modules by progressively improving individual packages or small package groups. Scratch builds for modules are not implemented. Local builds work differently from official module builds, they don’t scale and don’t allow groups of people to work collaboratively. All these problems can be solved by first developing a flat repository of packages in a shared environment and then generating modulemd from such package set. > > Problem №4: Testing things before push > > Primary Fedora Koji and dist-git are not suited for packaging experimentation. Packagers are expected to experiment on their own systems and push changes of successful experiments only. But this approach doesn’t scale with number of maintained packages. Often you can find commits like “d’oh, forgot to upload sources” or “let’s try with this settings”. People need to build things somewhere quickly, do development and testing. And only after that, they should push commit(s) to Fedora. > > Solution > > Separate Koji + Koschei deployed in Fedora infrastructure cloud; Why does this need to be deployed in the fedora infrastructure cloud? Seems like you could stand it up in AWS or somewhere else. josh _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
