On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 7:33 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
<zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hello fellow packagers!
>
> The subject of bootstrapping came up on fedora-devel recently.
> I had the following idea, about which I would love to hear some feedback:
>
> == Problem:
> building packages with bootstrap currently involves doing *two*
> patches to the spec file: first to add '%global _without_bootstrap 1',
> then comes a rebuild, second to remove the macro, and then comes
> another rebuild.
>
> == Partial solution
> Let's have an rpm that provides a single file that sets the macro for us:
> $ rpm -qpl noarch/rpm-with-bootstrap-0-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
> /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.rpm-with-bootstrap
> $ cat rpm-macros-bootstrap/macros.rpm-with-bootstrap
> # Enable %%with_bootstrap for all builds
> %_with_bootstrap 1
For my experience, a boolean bootstrap macro is not enough
for bootstrapping the whole Feodra distribution. Especially for
cross-bootstrapping Fedora to a new architecture.
We may need a few bootstrap stages.
For each stage we can define different value for an rpm macro.
For example:
%define _bootstrap_stage 1
%define _bootstrap_stage 2
....
And the %_bootstrap or %bootstrap macro may have been used
by different packages for different semantics.
It is better to use a brand new macro for distribution bootstrap.
-robin
>
> Then we can do the following:
> $ rpmdev-bumpspec 'Do rebuild w/ bootstrap'
> $ mock -i rpm-with-bootstrap
> $ fedpkg mockbuild
> $ rpmdev-bumpspec 'Do rebuild w/o bootstrap'
> $ mock -i rpm-without-bootstrap [3]
> $ fedpkg mockbuild
> Voilà!
>
> The same pattern should work with side-tags in koji.
>
> I prepared a poc implementation in [1] which builds
> rpm-{with,without}-{bootstrap,tests,lto}, and a test package [2] which
> prints the values of %with_bootstrap, %with_tests, %with_lto.
>
> == Full solution
> If we have automatic version bumps, this would become even simpler:
> $ mock -i rpm-with-bootstrap
> $ fedpkg mockbuild
> $ mock --dnf-cmd remove rpm-with-bootstrap
> $ fedpkg mockbuild
>
> My idea would be to submit [1] for package-review so that it's
> generally available.
>
> Note that this works if the package we're building uses
> %bcond_with bootstrap
> or
> %bcond_without bootstrap
> I picked %{with bootstrap}, %{with lto}, %{with tests} as
> generally-useful settings. I think it is worth standarizing the names
> like this, and at least %{with bootstrap} and %{with tests} could be
> added to packaging guidelines.
>
> [1] https://pagure.io/rpm-macros-bootstrap
> [2] https://pagure.io/rpm-macros-test
> [3] rpm-without-bootstrap has Conflicts:rpm-with-bootstrap, so installing
> one forces the other out. Alternatively, rpm-with-bootstrap may just
> be uninstalled.
>
> Zbyszek
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
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
