Hi,
I'm not sure if this is the correct Fedora mailinglist, but has anyone had a look at the OpenSuSe Build Service pages ( http://en.opensuse.org/Build_Service )?
There are two presentations (from FOSDEM) about it and it seems they have also done some experimenting with building non SuSe distributions with this build system (like Fedora Core 4).
Is this something that also could benefit the Fedora Project?
Best regards,
Jeroen Janssen
Jeroen Janssen schrieb:
I'm not sure if this is the correct Fedora mailinglist, but has anyone had a look at the OpenSuSe Build Service pages ( http://en.opensuse.org/Build_Service )?
I posted some thoughts some days ago here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2006-November/msg00124...
Is this something that also could benefit the Fedora Project?
I don't think so. I think we should make Fedora {Core,Extras,Alternatives,Legacy,Whatever} so good and flexible that something like that is not needed normally. Just my 2 cent.
Cu thl
Once upon a time Saturday 18 November 2006 6:55 am, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Jeroen Janssen schrieb:
I'm not sure if this is the correct Fedora mailinglist, but has anyone had a look at the OpenSuSe Build Service pages ( http://en.opensuse.org/Build_Service )?
I posted some thoughts some days ago here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2006-November/msg0012 4.html
Is this something that also could benefit the Fedora Project?
I don't think so. I think we should make Fedora {Core,Extras,Alternatives,Legacy,Whatever} so good and flexible that something like that is not needed normally. Just my 2 cent.
Additionally from what i saw of what they were wanting to offer you would submit a tarball select what you wanted a rpm for and it would go and build it. that scares me as it is not a reproducible build. i.e. what voodoo did they do to get it built and to get you a spec file.
Last i looked at a SuSE spec file i cried. it was extremely ugly. they have zero BuildRequires in there spec. they are relying on voodoo in their buildsys to bring in the necessary BuildRequires.
Maybe i'm wrong, i have not been following the service just going from what i remember reading.
Dennis
On Sat, 2006-11-18 at 13:39 +0100, Jeroen Janssen wrote:
Hi,
I'm not sure if this is the correct Fedora mailinglist, but has anyone had a look at the OpenSuSe Build Service pages ( http://en.opensuse.org/Build_Service )?
There are two presentations (from FOSDEM) about it and it seems they have also done some experimenting with building non SuSe distributions with this build system (like Fedora Core 4).
Is this something that also could benefit the Fedora Project?
Having already written most of Plague by the time OSBS came out, I read over pretty much everything about it when it was announced last year.
The purpose of the two do seem to overlap; however OSBS appears to have a much larger scope. It appears to try to be the one-stop shop for building _everything_ for any distribution with any build system or source-control system; which is fine. The pitch in those slides was basically "build your release packages on our buildsystem."
I don't think we want such a wide scope and fuzzy focus. I think Fedora is better served by a specific, targetted system that builds _Fedora_ packages. That's a fairly parochial attitude, but one which I think is in the best interest of Fedora. Given that everyone working on and admining the Fedora Extras buildsystem is a volunteer, we don't need to be spreading our resources out even further supporting something like the OSBS. We should be concentrating on building excellent packages for Fedora, and arguably nothing else; we cannot be everything to everybody or we are doomed to fail.
The building of packages is such an important and code piece of a distribution that it cannot _not_ be under the control of the project, and it cannot _not_ be _accountable_ to the project. As more of the Core responsibility gets spun out to the wider Fedora project, this only becomes more critical. We need to be able to admin the systems, we need to be able fix problems when they arise, we need to be able to demonstrate accountability and security of the buildsystem. Without that, there is no trust in the integrity of the distribution.
Cheers, Dan
Best regards,
Jeroen Janssen
-- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 18:28 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
On Sat, 2006-11-18 at 13:39 +0100, Jeroen Janssen wrote:
Hi,
I'm not sure if this is the correct Fedora mailinglist, but has anyone had a look at the OpenSuSe Build Service pages ( http://en.opensuse.org/Build_Service )?
There are two presentations (from FOSDEM) about it and it seems they have also done some experimenting with building non SuSe distributions with this build system (like Fedora Core 4).
Is this something that also could benefit the Fedora Project?
Having already written most of Plague by the time OSBS came out, I read over pretty much everything about it when it was announced last year.
The purpose of the two do seem to overlap; however OSBS appears to have a much larger scope. It appears to try to be the one-stop shop for building _everything_ for any distribution with any build system or source-control system; which is fine. The pitch in those slides was basically "build your release packages on our buildsystem."
I don't think we want such a wide scope and fuzzy focus. I think Fedora is better served by a specific, targetted system that builds _Fedora_ packages. That's a fairly parochial attitude, but one which I think is in the best interest of Fedora. Given that everyone working on and admining the Fedora Extras buildsystem is a volunteer, we don't need to be spreading our resources out even further supporting something like the OSBS. We should be concentrating on building excellent packages for Fedora, and arguably nothing else; we cannot be everything to everybody or we are doomed to fail.
The building of packages is such an important and code piece of a distribution that it cannot _not_ be under the control of the project, and it cannot _not_ be _accountable_ to the project. As more of the Core responsibility gets spun out to the wider Fedora project, this only becomes more critical. We need to be able to admin the systems, we need to be able fix problems when they arise, we need to be able to demonstrate accountability and security of the buildsystem. Without that, there is no trust in the integrity of the distribution.
This doesn't mean that code could be shared, of course, given compatible licensing.
dan
Cheers, Dan
Best regards,
Jeroen Janssen
-- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
-- Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list Fedora-buildsys-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list
On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 18:28 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
Having already written most of Plague by the time OSBS came out, I read over pretty much everything about it when it was announced last year.
The purpose of the two do seem to overlap; however OSBS appears to have a much larger scope. It appears to try to be the one-stop shop for building _everything_ for any distribution with any build system or source-control system; which is fine. The pitch in those slides was basically "build your release packages on our buildsystem."
I don't think we want such a wide scope and fuzzy focus. I think Fedora is better served by a specific, targetted system that builds _Fedora_ packages. That's a fairly parochial attitude, but one which I think is in the best interest of Fedora. Given that everyone working on and admining the Fedora Extras buildsystem is a volunteer, we don't need to be spreading our resources out even further supporting something like the OSBS. We should be concentrating on building excellent packages for Fedora, and arguably nothing else; we cannot be everything to everybody or we are doomed to fail.
The building of packages is such an important and code piece of a distribution that it cannot _not_ be under the control of the project, and it cannot _not_ be _accountable_ to the project. As more of the Core responsibility gets spun out to the wider Fedora project, this only becomes more critical. We need to be able to admin the systems, we need to be able fix problems when they arise, we need to be able to demonstrate accountability and security of the buildsystem. Without that, there is no trust in the integrity of the distribution.
I agree with Dan's assessment. Furthermore, he's done a great job giving fedora a buildsystem and we should continue to enhance it.
Additionally, it might be starting to be a good time to be afraid of things with Novell's copyright over them. We'll never know what patents we might be treading upon and only allowed to use provided we're not with a company.
-sv
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Dan Williams -
Dennis Gilmore -
Jeroen Janssen -
seth vidal -
Thorsten Leemhuis