On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 11:44 AM Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 8 2025 at 06:27:19 AM -08:00:00, Neal Gompa > <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > If I'm answering that question for myself, I would say that the > > biggest feature gap that we have from a modern build system like the > > Open Build Service is that we as packagers have to do dependency > > resolution for building groups of packages. Nobody *likes* manually > > sequencing packages for Koji chainbuilds. Nobody likes having to work > > through reverse dependencies and manually building them when a library > > has been upgraded. These are serious grunt work things that a computer > > should do for us. Before I started seriously contributing to openSUSE > > 10 years ago, I had never conceived it was possible, and now I want > > that for Fedora contributors. > > Agree. openSUSE has been doing this for 15 years. It's long past time > for Fedora to catch up. > > > So if we're presupposing a solution, why wouldn't we consider the Open > > Build Service for Fedora? It has these features and we would massively > > benefit from them, in addition to OBS doing fully hermetic builds with > > actual ephemeral VMs rather than chroots or containers (which are > > *not* good enough for this task). > > Hm, asides from the nice automated rebuild feature, I don't like OBS > very much: > > * The web UI is quite awkward. Surely a fixable problem, but I think > it would really need a *lot* of work. > * OBS source code management is not git, and surely inferior to the > dist-git we have now. https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:OBS_with_Git > looks pretty inadequate. > > There is already a plan to use Forgejo for hosting our git repos. > That's surely nicer than OBS. I suspect the automated rebuild feature > is the only feature of OBS that Fedora really needs? > > But I assume you've thought about all of the above and have some sort > of plan? > The UI is currently under redevelopment, so if we wanted to go this route, we can talk to them and engage to put in our feedback. The git-obs workflow is very awkward right now, but it is being plugged with Gitea, so Forgejo would be compatible with it. When I did it at Datto, I just ignored OBS for this part and only used its UI for the release engineering parts (creating updates and writing updateinfo through the maintenance updates process, etc.). For the rest, I had our forge (GitLab) run on tag-release to submit to the build system automatically with a tool I wrote called obsctl[1], which is packaged in Fedora[2]. I gave a talk about it before[3] and wrote a blogpost that is no longer available[4]. OBS also builds more than packages. It builds images too, and applies the same principles and features for package builds to it. So the concept of a "compose" that we have now would probably be completely dead with OBS, since images would get targeted rebuilds regularly based on content updates. [1]: https://gitlab.com/datto/engineering/DevOps/obsctl [2]: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/obsctl [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xtv7bq0EPr8 [4]: https://web.archive.org/web/20220129141351/https://datto.engineering/post/flexible-and-fast-software-delivery-with-the-open-build-service -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! -- _______________________________________________ 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
