On Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 11:02 AM Demi Marie Obenour
<demiobenour(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/23/22 07:46, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 12:56 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 4:14 AM Dan Čermák
>> <dan.cermak(a)cgc-instruments.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Richard Shaw <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Replying in general...
>>>>
>>>> I've asked about a "one script to rule them all" a few
times over my 10+
>>>> year Fedora packaging career and it's fallen on deaf ears.
>>>>
>>>> I hope something will happen this time. There should really be only ONE
way
>>>> to determine what packages need to be rebuilt, even if it's not
perfect, we
>>>> can deal with the corner cases but everyone doing their own thing has
>>>> definitely been worse.
>>>
>>> In a perfect world koji or koschei would figure this out themselves and
>>> perform the rebuilds for us so that we can finally stop thinking about
>>> build orders and dependencies ourselves.
>>
>> The sad part is that Koschei can do it, but the build system folks
>> have so far refused to enhance Koji and Koschei to do this for
>> creating *real builds* that are auto-submitted.
>
> Alright Neal, this is a bit off-topic, but I'll bite.
>
> Auto-submitting real builds is something that I will, except in very
> narrowly defined exceptions, always disagree with.
> Until now, automagic builds have only caused trouble. Just look at the
> mess that's regularly made in the podman/container stack, or by stuff
> that was automatically submitted by packit. It's one of the reasons
> why we now have a policy that requires actual people to be responsible
> for all builds submitted by bots.
>
> Even if we had a mechanism to trigger automatic rebuilds of dependent
> packages (i.e. "I have detected that the sonames of the libraries in
> this package have changed, let me also rebuild dependent packages for
> this!") only works *if* (and that's a big *if*) the ABI change isn't
> accompanied by breaking API changes, as well. What would you want to
> happen then? I'm pretty sure software isn't smart enough yet to
> determine in advance if any breaking API changes affect any dependent
> packages.
This is going to be true for the majority of Haskell and Rust package
updates if Fedora ever decides to use dynamic linking for them.
Same for lots of C++ template libraries.
Do you have any indication that the Rust language and build system are
working on supporting this?
Fabio