GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 709019
Out of date default moduleset
Last modified: 2013-10-29 13:01:48 UTC
3.10 is still listed as the default when it probably should be updated now. Also I think the moduleset gnome-suite-core because it includes all modules needed to build the core rather than a select few
Created attachment 256004 [details] [review] moduleset: update to 3.12 and use most general case Bug
Created attachment 256012 [details] [review] Update for moduleset includes example 3.12 I am not going to obsolete 256004: moduleset: update to 3.12 and use most general case Just in case my example is not no good it means a simple moduleset update will still be there to use if needed.
Review of attachment 256004 [details] [review]: Hmmm, the "most general" is -apps, not -suites-core. Why are you switching it?
Review of attachment 256012 [details] [review]: Hi Magdalen, There's quite a lot of changes being made to the sample here. For the prefix change, there's another bug open on that: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=655714 The lib64 bits duplicate the default, no? The multiprocessing stuff is built-in now for quite a while. etc. Basically I know it's painful, but since it's so easy to break the build for many people by changing jhbuild, can you open individual bugs for things you'd like to change with rationale?
About the switch to 3.12, we used to wait for the stable.1 release to happen first.
(In reply to comment #3) > Review of attachment 256004 [details] [review]: > > Hmmm, the "most general" is -apps, not -suites-core. Why are you switching it? What makes you say this? Maybe you misunderstood what I meant by "most general". The bare minimum modules needed in order to run gnome as a desktop environment. A few examples of modules not in gnome-apps: GNOME Shell, gnome-control-center, gsettings-desktop-schemas gnome-system-monitor, evolution-data-server, at-spi-atk and at-spi2-core and pretty much everything needed networking These are found in gnome-suites-core gnome-apps seems like a great one to add on for developing some standalone apps but the majority of modules in gnome-apps are games, which is fine, but is it really the most appropriate "core" default moduleset material? I am not convinced. The modulset names themselves are telling...
Thanks for taking a look. The (In reply to comment #4) > Review of attachment 256012 [details] [review]: > > Hi Magdalen, > > There's quite a lot of changes being made to the sample here. For the prefix > change, there's another bug open on that: > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=655714 > > The lib64 bits duplicate the default, no? Not quite. > > The multiprocessing stuff is built-in now for quite a while. > I know, but I guess I am maybe not quite sure how to make both an example and a config work well together. Do you suggest only keeping to strictly to configuration that differs from the main one in /jhbuild/defaults.jhbuildrc? > etc. > > Basically I know it's painful, but since it's so easy to break the build for > many people by changing jhbuild, can you open individual bugs for things you'd > like to change with rationale? The second patch was I admit was a little lazy, but I needed to get a better idea of what the aim of the configuration examples really was before being able to make anything more specific. If you want to see a specific update then my first patch should hopefully serve that purpose. https://bug709019.bugzilla-attachments.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=256004 >About the switch to 3.12, we used to wait for the stable.1 release to happen >first. The 3.12 modulesets already landed so I assumed the development had begun. Can't be too fair off can it? Thanks everyone!
far not fair... sorry.
gnome-apps includes gnome-suites-core which includes gnome-suites-core-deps which includes gnome-sysdeps We want gnome-apps to be the default, since it contains a metamodule that we build as part of our releases, so we want it as widely and frequently built and tested as possible. gnome-world is the 'wider ecosystem' moduleset.
(In reply to comment #7) > > The lib64 bits duplicate the default, no? > > Not quite. This is exactly what I mean; if you see an issue with the current lib64 logic (which may have bugs!) please do file a separate issue. But we need to have more of a discussion about it. > Do you suggest only keeping to strictly to configuration that differs from the > main one in /jhbuild/defaults.jhbuildrc? Mmmm; this is just my opinion, but I'd say it makes sense to have things in sample.jhbuildrc that are frequently tweaked. For example, I'd absolutely keep the 'modules' and 'moduleset' parameters in there. But the lib64 stuff is a good example of something that should Just Work.
(In reply to comment #9) > gnome-apps includes gnome-suites-core which includes gnome-suites-core-deps > which includes gnome-sysdeps > > We want gnome-apps to be the default, since it contains a metamodule that we > build as part of our releases, so we want it as widely and frequently built and > tested as possible. > > gnome-world is the 'wider ecosystem' moduleset. So it does! Why is that?
(In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #7) > > > > The lib64 bits duplicate the default, no? > > > > Not quite. > > This is exactly what I mean; if you see an issue with the current lib64 logic > (which may have bugs!) please do file a separate issue. But we need to have > more of a discussion about it. > Ok, I made bug https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=709238 for that. I am not totally what I replaced could have stayed in or not though. > > Do you suggest only keeping to strictly to configuration that differs from the > > main one in /jhbuild/defaults.jhbuildrc? > > Mmmm; this is just my opinion, but I'd say it makes sense to have things in > sample.jhbuildrc that are frequently tweaked. For example, I'd absolutely keep > the 'modules' and 'moduleset' parameters in there. But the lib64 stuff is a > good example of something that should Just Work. That makes sense. Thank you. I will make a dedicated 'example' bug and leave this thread for a module update. Taking Matthias Clasen's comment on board as well, I have made a different update patch.
Created attachment 256229 [details] [review] Update to use 3.12 modulesets Bug
Created attachment 258313 [details] [review] Example: update for moduleset
Review of attachment 256229 [details] [review]: Looks good now that 3.10.1 is out, thanks!a
Review of attachment 258313 [details] [review]: Hah, wow that default was out of date...
Thanks!
Comment on attachment 256229 [details] [review] Update to use 3.12 modulesets Pushed to master as d5d7372e3d18890f80dfad388160b255b1a2e87a.
Comment on attachment 258313 [details] [review] Example: update for moduleset Pushed to master as 140ba9393d309ac2d34f3bce0b33f90b3344e734.