On Wed, 2022-04-27 at 11:26 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:13 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 09:31:10AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 7:41 AM Lennart Poettering > > > > > Realistically, I think if we want to make movement on making > > > > > systemd-boot fully supported in Fedora, the systemd-boot boot manager > > > > > code itself should be split out into its own repository with its own > > > > > release cadence, while bootctl(1) and related infrastructure remains > > > > > in the systemd source tree and evolves to be able to manage arbitrary > > > > > BLS-conformant boot managers. > > > > > > > > Why though? I don't follow? as long as we provide you with a tarball > > > > you can build your stuff from it shouldn't really matter if there's > > > > more stuff in it you are not immediately interested in. > > > > > > > > I mean, if you like I could do a "cp systemd-251.tar.gz > > > > systemd-boot-251.tar.gz" for you if you want two tarballs instead of > > > > one, but I don't see the point? > > > > > > > > > > As I illustrated in another email[5], decoupling the lifecycle of the > > > EFI boot manager code from the rest of systemd would be ideal to not > > > make the constraints around building sd-boot with secure boot support > > > painful. > > > > > > [5]: https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2022-April/047801.html > > > > Apart from the constraint who can build official packages, is there > > anything else? If it's just that, that doesn't seem onerous. > > It also means Fedora CI, pull requests from contributors, and > releng auto-rebuilds will no longer work. Maintainers basically > sign-on to do all of those things manually and have to be responsive > for doing it. You will get FTBFS tickets every cycle because of it, > for example. > > Koji doesn't conceptually know the difference because there is no > namespacing for builders, only who is approved to build. > > (In contrast, in the Open Build Service like what Luca Boccassi was > talking about, packagers don't control the builds at all, so OBS only > has to trust itself to sign it, so everything works properly.) You could simply have a separate source RPM, no? That should be pretty simple, and limit the impact on team maintenance of the main source package? (OBS is awesome :-) ) -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
