Re: F29 System Wide Change: Remove GCC from BuildRoot

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




Dne 16.2.2018 v 16:12 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
>
> Dne 16.2.2018 v 15:27 Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a):
>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 12:56:32PM +0100, Jan Kurik wrote:
>>> Proposed System Wide Change: Remove GCC from BuildRoot
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_GCC_from_BuildRoot
>>>
>>>
>>> Owner(s):
>>>   * Igor Gnatenko <ignatenkobrain at fedoraproject dot org>
>>>
>>>
>>> Removing gcc and gcc-c++ from default buildroot in Koji and mock.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> == Detailed description ==
>>> Since beginning of Fedora, gcc (and gcc-c++) are installed in every
>>> buildroot. Times have changed and nowadays many of packages are not
>>> written in C/C++, they are written in Python, Ruby, Node.js, Go, Rust,
>>> OCaml, Perl and so on so they don't need to have C/C++ compiler.
>>> Installing gcc and gcc-c++ takes time so if we remove it, we can
>>> improve build times for many of the packages.
>>>
>>>
>>> == Scope ==
>>> * Proposal owners:
>>> Remove gcc, gcc-c++ from build group in Koji and from buildsys-build
>>> group in comps.
>>>
>>> * Other developers:
>>> Maintainers should follow guidelines and add BuildRequires: gcc if
>>> they need it during build (this guideline exists for long time).
>> I feel like this is something that many many many packages will not
>> have present. For a long time it was acceptable to omit BuildRequires
>> for stuff that was in the default build root, and while the C/C++
>> packaging guidelines do say you need BR: gcc, I expect most packagers
>> have never noticed this changed.
>>
>> IOW, if we remove gcc/gcc-c++ from the build root, *before* fixing
>> up packages we're going to create a huge pile of rebuild failures.
>>
>> Can we please do something here to identify which packages likely have
>> missing BR: gcc and automatically fix up the specs, rather than creating
>> 100's of failing packages and then waiting weeks in a broken state for
>> maintainers to fix them up.
> When I started this discussion 3 years ago, I tried to get some
> estimates in subthread started by this message:
>
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/AEYQSAGVPT64TNZ3PA52U4PLEPUOOKGV/
>

Or may be this one?


https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/EMWYUIZL4QQBAPKEVRNYOFKUPWSW3F7G/


Just for the fun, I run the same queries for Rawhide:

$ dnf repoquery --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=rawhide-source --arch src
'*' | wc -l
20946

$ dnf repoquery --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=rawhide --source
--whatrequires 'libc.so.6*' | sort -u | sed -r 's/(.*)-.*-.*/\1/' | uniq
| wc -l
8559


40,86 % of packages is in C/C++. It looks the trend continues ...


V.

_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux