Hau idatzi du Michael J Gruber (mjg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) erabiltzaileak (2025 urt. 20(a), al. (11:29)): > > Following the Go-SIG proposal would be the can-opener to deviate from > our distribution model in general. I mean, if I can pull in a myriad of > Go or Rust modules for my package to build (without individual review or > re-review in case of changed dependencies), then why should I bother > unbundling a library such as zlib, regex, openssl, ... ? > > There is a second point to that, and that is Fedora as a development > platform (not just as an "app" platform). If we expect developers to > install dependencies of their project via the ecosystem tools (pip, ...) > locally (envs, containers) and "app packages" do the same during build > then it is time to change the fundamental approach to our distribution > and view it "merely" as a platform. AFAIK it was never the intention of go-sig to provide packages as development modules. > I don't mean to connotate "merely" negatively - but the proposed change > has impact overall, and we should *really want it* as a direction to go > in generally. > > > If this proposal gains consensus, we could aim to implement the change > > as part of Fedora 43, with the development phase used for migration > > and retiring packages that may no longer fit within the updated > > framework. > > How would packages "not fit"? By not bundling, i.e. by following our > packaging guidelines so far? If a binary package is bundled, some packages could become leave packages that no other package require. I refer to these packages, as maintaining them wouldn't make much sense. > To put it differently: Do you intend to > discourage/disallow "not bundling", or packaging dependencies? Packages with minimal dependencies could still be maintained, but those with a complex dependency chain would be discouraged. For instance, if a package relies on golang-x-* modules and pkg/errors for example, it remains feasible to maintain. However, if the required stack includes frameworks like docker, k8s, moby, or otel, it would be discouraged. In any case, this is something we should clarify further during this discussion. > > On a related note, I recently highlighted how the introduction of > > Golang 1.24 has caused significant breakage in over 200 packages [3], > > an issue that underscores the urgency of addressing these challenges. > > How would bundling alleviate this issue? By assuming that all upstreams > have adjusted to Golang 1.24 already so that you don't have to wait for > package updates but just pull in with your package? Many of the failing packages are source-only packages that are required to build binary containing packages. If binary packages are bundled, many of the failing source packages could be retired. Regards, Mikel -- _______________________________________________ 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
