Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Modules in Non-Modular Buildroot

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

 



On Thu, 2019-10-17 at 15:04 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> Not without using their packaging system, their build system and
> their
> other design choices.

Frankly, this is not a bad caveat. Keep in mind that we also had to
change our build system for modularity.

>  Working out slots would mean needing to make
> changes into how RPM works and how yum/dnf work.

This is also true for modularity.

>  It might also not be
> possible because a bit of Gentoo's magic is letting the local system
> build all the different slot choices instead of having to build all
> the combinatorics that having 3 different glibc and N gcc compilers
> would need.

Conary had use flags without the local system doing the builds. But in
general, I think the slots thing would not require any local builds -
it's just a way to specify cleanly which versions of something can be
available for parallel install and which cannot.

By the way, I think I started using Gentoo in 2004 or so, and back then
they didn't have parallel installability, but they did have parallel
availability, even without slots. They just had various versions of
each package available in the same repository at the same time, and I
could use the package manager to express which one I want.

>  To do the magic NixOS does.. we need to eject the FHS and
> use a similar system. At that point, we aren't developing Fedora
> anymore.. we are developing a clone of NixOS or Gentoo.

Well there's more to the distro than the package manager. I think we
could use great tools that other distros have made instead of having to
make our own just because we want to be more separate from them.

>  [And there
> would be no magic way to move from a Fedora 33 system to Fedora-Nix-
> 34
> or Fedora-Gen-34.. at which point we might as well just call the
> whole
> thing from scratch.] If we are going that far we might as well
> rewrite
> conary in python3 or rust and start from there...

I agree that upgrading would be hard.

Resurrecting conary for Python 3 would be awesome, I'm sad that it is
just sitting there in Python 2.old not being used - it's really good.

Rust is also great.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [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