Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 8:30 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 03/01/2023 18:42, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>> > * AGREED: APPROVED (+6,1,-1) This Change is implemented for Fedora
>> > Linux 38 and we evaluate whether to retain it by Fedora Linux 40.
>> > This Change must be implemented in a manner which packages are
>> > able to trivially opt-out of retaining frame pointers during
>> > compilation so that packages that take larger performance hits can
>> > easily
>> > revert. (mhroncok, 17:20:38)
>>
>> Already rejected proposal was submitted because big corporations weren't
>> happy with the results. This is a VERY BAD precedent for Fedora.
>>
> Actually, the Change owners were prepared to give up. I was the one
> that pushed for it to be reconsidered because of how much benefit it
> gives to desktop Linux developers.
The way this was done is so wrong:
* There was a vote. You were not happy with the outcome.
* So you first tried to complain in the original ticket about this. It was
clear that the consensus in that ticket was to not reconsider at this time.
* So instead, you filed up a *new* ticket, with *no* public discussion
(e.g., on this mailing list), and also with *no* link in the original
ticket, thereby excluding participants of the existing discussion that you
lost (who did not get any notification that the decision was being
reconsidered before it was too late and hence no chance to chime in).
* And then you expedited the issue to the next meeting, only 4 days after it
was opened, again precluding any kind of discussion or feedback.
* I also do not see anything that has changed since this was last discussed.
* And as in the last discussion, I still believe that 2 releases, i.e., a
whole year, is way too long an evaluation period. If anything, this needs to
be evaluated in Rawhide only with the option to revert it with a mass
rebuild before feature freeze. It does not make sense to ship pessimized
code to end users for a whole year.
> When the Change proposal came in for FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 (which introduces
> similar pressure), the resulting discussion prompted the re-vote.
I do not see how this is a fair comparison because FORTIFY_SOURCE is a
security feature whereas this one is not. Of course, stricter FORTIFY_SOURCE
comes at a performance penalty, but it improves security for end users.
Frame pointers, on the other hand, bring no value whatsoever to end users,
only to developers.
In addition, if you believe the penalty is too high, then the outcome should
have been to reconsider the FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 change instead.
Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
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
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
