From: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com>
To: Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli <GNUtoo@cyberdimension.org>,
51352@debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Mathieu Othacehe <othacehe@gnu.org>
Subject: bug#51352: Matterbridge contained a lot of vendored code
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 18:43:37 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <02da99762b4b0ac01d05e22f974d85737a351815.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211023165702.1e518f56@primarylaptop>
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 23.10.2021, 16:57 +0200 schrieb Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli:
> Hi,
>
> When I sent the patch adding matterbridge to Guix, I only notified
> that I didn't know if it contained vendored code or not at the last
> moment (after the patch was sent, during the discussion about it, and
> before it was merged).
>
> The issue is that I didn't know go at all and more specifically I
> didn't know its the compilation system worked. So I managed to create
> a package for matterbridge by looking at how it was done for other go
> packages.
>
> After learning more about how go compilation worked, I found out that
> matterbridge contained a lot of vendored code.
Judging from the original issue, you did note that guideline and that
you were unsure about the "under the hood" stuff, which imo should have
prompted a closer look. CC'd Mathieu to check whether pushing it
regardless was intentional.
> And Guix explicitly wants to avoid bundles code. In the "16.6
> Submitting Patches" section of the manual[1], we have:
> > 6. Make sure the package does not use bundled copies of software
> > already available as separate packages.
> And here while most dependencies are not already packaged, some are,
> and I guess that I should read between the lines and conclude that
> all the matterbridge dependencies should rather be packaged.
>
> So the question is what should we do about that.
>
> As I understand with the go build system, or you vendor all
> dependencies, or you vendor none, and I've not yet managed to find a
> way to workaround that yet in Guix (to do a progressive unvendoring).
>
> So instead I've started working on unvendoring matterbridge[2]
> completely, but if we go this route, there are more than 500
> dependencies.
>
> To do that I first used the following command:
> guix import go -r github.com/42wim/matterbridge
>
> I then started looking at each package definition that Guix didn't
> manage to detect the license of, and I read the licenses to find if
> they were free software. All the licenses I read were FSDG compliant.
> Usually they had some extra text indicating the provenance of the
> code or they would have multiple free software licenses.
>
> Then I started adding packages for the dependencies that guix import
> go didn't manage to find.
It's good that you've started. Perhaps you might want to illustrate
the dependency "tree" (assuming it is one) or graph to roughly indicate
how much needs to be done and at which points we could cut off portions
of the DAG to process as batches.
> Theses are repositories that are being forked from the official ones
> for a reason or another.
>
> I've not finished that yet, but I still think it was a good idea to
> open a bug report as I've now more understanding of the problem.
>
> Given the huge amount of dependencies I was wondering what was the
> best approach here:
> - Would it makes sense to remove matterbridge from Guix, or should we
> fix it instead?
I'll let Mathieu decide that one.
> - If we fix it by packaging each dependencies, would it be ok if that
> is done step by step, like if dependencies are packaged and patches
> for them are sent, without necessarily a way to seriously test if
> the packaged dependency work until they are used by other software
> (like matterbridge)?
Ideally, those packages would at least have a working test suite, but I
understand that such concerns are not always valid in the industry :)
As noted before, cutting off branches of the dependency DAG at
reasonable points and committing them in batches sounds like a good
idea to me. No one wants to review a 500 commit bomb.
> Also when I'll manage to update matterbridge[3] how should we deal
> with such amount of packages? Would I need to send one (generated)
> patch for the upgrade of each package?
One patch per package, plus one to fix the matterbridge package.
> I also guess that sticking as much as possible to what Guix import go
> generates would help in situations like that as it would make the
> maintenance faster.
The importers exist to make your life easier, but they're not
omniscient. Please do exercise caution when dealing with them :)
Cheers,
Liliana
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-23 16:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-23 14:57 bug#51352: Matterbridge contained a lot of vendored code Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli
2021-10-23 16:43 ` Liliana Marie Prikler [this message]
2021-10-23 19:49 ` Leo Famulari
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=02da99762b4b0ac01d05e22f974d85737a351815.camel@gmail.com \
--to=liliana.prikler@gmail.com \
--cc=51352@debbugs.gnu.org \
--cc=GNUtoo@cyberdimension.org \
--cc=othacehe@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.