On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 11:13 AM Adam Samalik <asamalik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 10:58 AM Petr Šabata <contyk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 05:00:43PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: >> > > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 3:44 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > >> > > > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 9:35 AM Fabio Valentini < decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> >> > > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > > Hi all, >> > > >> > > > > I think I finally found a scenario where building some of my (and >> > > > others') packages as modules would be beneficial. >> > > >> > > > > The situation is: >> > > >> > > > > - The syncthing package has a lot of golang dependencies. >> > > > > - Some of them are too old in fedora, even in fedora rawhide, and >> some >> > > of >> > > > them have not been touched in years. >> > > > > - However, some other packages may depend on those older versions, >> or >> > > the >> > > > packagers don't have time to check for compatibility. >> > > >> > > > > The idea for a solution I came up with: >> > > >> > > > > - Build syncthing as a module. >> > > > > - Add "syncthing" branches to all incompatible dependencies (I >> guess I >> > > > have to request commit/admin access to do that for packages I don't >> own >> > > > yet?). >> > > > > - Update those branches to use the exact same commit as the vendored >> > > > sources in upstream syncthing. >> > > > > - Use those modules as dependencies for the syncthing module. >> > > >> > > > > Is that a valid, feasible use case of modularity? >> > > >> > > >> > > > You can kind of pigeonhole it into that, but I think you might be >> better >> > > > served by vendoring things you can't use from Fedora packages and >> going >> > > > from there. >> > > >> > > > The problem is that you're touching other people's packages and hoping >> > > they >> > > > don't make those branches go away. And at the end of it, the output >> would >> > > > be a single package that lives outside of the normal repo metadata and >> > > only >> > > > modularity-enabled clients would be able to install it. >> > > >> > > > The excludes most of the package managers that people can use in >> Fedora >> > > > right now. >> > > >> > > > It might make sense if you could describe which dist-git commit to >> use in >> > > > the module definition, regardless of what's actually released in the >> main >> > > > repos, and it would just build from those until you upgrade it. That >> would >> > > > avoid the need for branches in all the golang packages you need for >> > > > syncthing. >> > > >> > > I don't think that would be the case. >> > > An upstream commit that's newer than anything that has ever been >> packaged >> > > before for a fedora branch is never available, not even if I could >> target >> > > other dist-git commits. That's why I thought of modularity. >> > I might not be following but: >> > * you can link to any git refs -- branches, tags, or commits >> Yes, Neal also pointed that out to me - but it doesn't help if the required >> dependency has to be newer than anything that has ever been packaged for >> fedora, does it? > Modules can only include RPM packages — so having an upstream dependency which is not packaged is not gonna work. But if you package it yourself (possibly in a stream branch), you'll be fine. Yes, that's exactly what I would do, because the "normal" branches of those dependencies can't / won't be updated to the version I need because of arising conflicts. >> > * if you branch the dependencies, it's really up to you to maintain >> > those; that also means you can use any versions and patches >> > I think modularity could solve your problem provided that you >> > are fine with the syncthing module overriding those dependency >> > packages when people enable it. >> > Neal's comment on support in package managers is valid. >> > This will get better over time but the current state of things >> > is also something to consider. >> > P >> > _______________________________________________ >> > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/2XSSRRCHAKOFCSHJ5NMVWK2LHFEXOA5W/ >> _______________________________________________ >> devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/Y2RRCYPTCK7WN6ZSC3XOCNX3Z2SA7XF5/ > -- > Adam Šamalík > --------------------------- > Software Engineer > Red Hat > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/VWYRTM33EGD5FSIBZOBVLIZS2JDO3PTJ/ _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/Q7WQJCR6JKOE7SS5ZSQYHL3JQBUYTKF2/
