On Saturday, June 20, 2020 4:37:06 PM MST Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 17:42, Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 5:25 PM John M. Harris Jr <johnmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, June 20, 2020 4:42:17 AM MST Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > > > > TL;DR benefits of modularity for Fedora: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Automating build chains for producing artifacts > > > > * Straightforward mechanism of producing non-rpm artifacts using our > > > > existing tooling (modules -> flatpaks/containers/etc.) > > > > > > > > > > > > Both of these have nothing to do with Modularity, and can be done with > > > existing RPMs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They have everything to do with Modularity, because that layer is > > where that stuff was implemented. Modularity was the result of the > > efforts involved with Factory 2.0, which gave us a lot of improvements > > in our build infrastructure tooling for the first time since 2007. > > Most of that rolled out in 2017, a full ten years after the last > > revamp of our infrastructure. > > > > > > > I think that John and others aren't aware of how a module is built > enough to understand what you meant by > * Automating build chains for producing artifacts > compared to how it is done normally. > > In normal times, a packager goes through a list of packages, updates > spec files with new tags and rebuilds them one by one as needed.. > sometimes multiple times because of bootstrapping or finding out that > the order you tried was wrong. A made up example from my days of doing > this for a different place (this isn't what is needed anymore but long > ago I had something similar): > bison > flex > gcc [options 1] > bison > flex > gcc [options 2] > glibc > bison > flex > gcc > > do them in one order and the apps came out working... do them in the > wrong order and it might not. Rust, Java and other language stacks > have similar loops. A packager may have to coordinate with multiple > people to do this several times. > > In a module, you write that all down in the manifest with the order > that you want packages built in and if you need to loop through them > with different options. Then MBS does the builds in an automated > fashion and it is repeatable. To me this is the biggest win here as > for various groups of mass-rebuilds it cuts down errors when order > matters and you have to do multiple ones to get from package set A to > package set A+1. > > Making it easier to make flatpacks and stuff also is built into the > tools which came with modularity. The tools which were doing it for > the Fedora buildsystem before this were 'fragile'. > > Yes a packager or system administrator can build these things without > the modularity build system but trying to do it in scale in Fedora > ended up needing the tools which came with MBS. While the tooling came at the same time, it doesn't necessarily need Modularity. See Ken Dreyer's example in the above subthread. We don't need Modules to do a lot of things that happened to drop around the same time, or that were created to work with Modularity. -- John M. Harris, Jr. _______________________________________________ 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
