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 16:33 Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a):
> 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...

$ curl -OL http://src.fedoraproject.org/repo/rpm-specs-latest.tar.xz
$ tar xfv rpm-specs-latest.tar.xz
$ cd rpm-specs/
$ grep -R -e 'BuildRequires.*gcc' | wc -l
1912


Vít

>
> Regards,
> Daniel
_______________________________________________
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