On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 04:22:58PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > 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 ... Don't suppose you have any easy way to query how many .spec files in master, have a "BuildRequires: gcc". Would be interesting to get a guide as to how many of those 8559 are likely to break from this proposed change... Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
