From Fedora Project Wiki
(Created page with "{{admon/important | Comments and Explanations | The page source contains comments providing guidance to fill out each section. They are invisible when viewing this page. To re...")
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{admon/important | Comments and Explanations | The page source contains comments providing guidance to fill out each section. They are invisible when viewing this page. To read it, choose the "edit" link.<br/> '''Copy the source to a ''new page'' before making changes!  DO NOT EDIT THIS TEMPLATE FOR YOUR CHANGE PROPOSAL.'''}}
= Fedora 20 Boost 1.54 Uplift =
 
<!-- Self Contained or System Wide Change Proposal?
Use this guide to determine to which category your proposed change belongs to.
 
Self Contained Changes are:
* changes to isolated/leaf package without the impact on other packages/rest of the distribution
* limited scope changes without the impact on other packages/rest of the distribution
* coordinated effort within SIG with limited impact outside SIG functional area, accepted by the SIG
 
System Wide Changes are:
* changes that does not fit Self Contained Changes category touching
* changes that require coordination within the distribution (for example mass rebuilds, release engineering or other teams effort etc.)
* changing system defaults
 
For Self Contained Changes, sections marked as "REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES" are OPTIONAL but FESCo/Wrangler can request more details (especially in case the change proposal category is
improper or updated to System Wide category). For System Wide Changes all fields on this form are required for FESCo acceptance (when applies). 
 
We request that you maintain the same order of sections so that all of the change proposal pages are uniform.
-->
 
<!-- The actual name of your proposed change page should look something like: Changes/Your_Change_Proposal_Name.  This keeps all change proposals in the same namespace -->
 
= Change Proposal Name <!-- The name of your change proposal --> =


== Summary ==
== Summary ==
<!-- A sentence or two summarizing what this change is and what it will do. This information is used for the overall changeset summary page for each release. -->
This change brings Boost 1.54.X to Fedora 20.


== Owner ==
== Owner ==
<!--
 
For change proposals to quality as self-contained, owners of all affected packages need to be included here. Alternatively, a SIG can be listed as an owner if it owns all affected packages.
* Name: [[User:pmachata| Petr Machata]]
This should link to your home wiki page so we know who you are.
* Email: pmachata redhat com
-->
* Name: [[User:FASAcountName| Your Name]]
<!-- Include you email address that you can be reached should people want to contact you about helping with your change, status is requested, or technical issues need to be resolved. If the change proposal is owned by a SIG, please also add a primary contact person. -->
* Email: <your email address so we can contact you, invite you to meetings, etc.>
* Release notes owner: <!--- To be assigned by docs team [[User:FASAccountName| Release notes owner name]] <email address> -->
* Release notes owner: <!--- To be assigned by docs team [[User:FASAccountName| Release notes owner name]] <email address> -->
<!--- UNCOMMENT only for Changes with assigned Shepherd (by FESCo)
 
* FESCo shepherd: [[User:FASAccountName| Shehperd name]] <email address>
* Backup contact, co-maintainer: [[User:Denisarnaud| Denis Arnaud]]
-->
* Backup contact: Benjamin De Kosnik <bkoz redhat com>


== Current status ==
== Current status ==
* Targeted release: [[Releases/<number> | Fedora <number> ]]  
 
* Last updated: (DATE)
* Targeted release: [[Releases/20 | Fedora 20]]  
* Last updated: 2013-07-03
<!-- After the change proposal is accepted by FESCo, tracking bug is created in Bugzilla and linked to this page  
<!-- After the change proposal is accepted by FESCo, tracking bug is created in Bugzilla and linked to this page  
Bugzilla states meaning as usual:
Bugzilla states meaning as usual:
Line 51: Line 25:
CLOSED as NEXTRELEASE -> change is completed and verified and will be delivered in next release under development
CLOSED as NEXTRELEASE -> change is completed and verified and will be delivered in next release under development
-->
-->
* Tracker bug: <will be assigned by the Wrangler>
* Tracker bug:


== Detailed Description ==
== Detailed Description ==
<!-- Expand on the summary, if appropriate.  A couple sentences suffices to explain the goal, but the more details you can provide the better. -->
 
The aim is to synchronize Fedora with the most recent Boost release.  Because ABI stability is one of explicit Boost non-goals, this entails rebuilding of all dependent packages (or just packaging soon enough that a mass rebuild, if any, takes care of this for free).  This has also always entailed yours truly assisting maintainers of client packages in decoding cryptic boostese seen in output from frustrated g++.  Such care is to be expected this time around as well.
 
As a side note, there are currently two broad Boost-related ongoing projects: repository modularization, and conversion to CMake.  The first doesn't need to concern us, as it's purely upstream issue.  Boost will keep being released in a single super-tarball for time to come.  The latter may concern us eventually in that will require adjustment of packaging, but that's nowhere near ready yet.
 
As another side-note, I am considering packaging boost-devel in modules.  Frankly, boost-devel is unwieldy.  Shipping 1.8MLOC in a single package defies the purpose of packaging.  Unlike the abovementioned modularization effort, which is purely upstream, this one is purely in packaging, and wholly separate from upstream.  I expect this to be part of Change for Fedora 21.
 
And finally here is the [[Features/F19Boost153|Fedora 19 Feature request]], should you need it.


== Benefit to Fedora ==
== Benefit to Fedora ==
<!-- What is the benefit to the platform?  If this is a major capability update, what has changed? If this is a new functionality, what capabilities does it bring? Why will Fedora become a better distribution or project because of this proposal?-->
 
Fedora will stay relevant, as far as Boost clients and fanbois are concerned. Boost 1.54 brings three new libraries.


== Scope ==
== Scope ==
<!-- What work do the developers have to accomplish to complete the change in time for release? Is it a large change affecting many parts of the distribution or is it a very isolated change? What are those changes?-->
 
Rebasing Boost has a fairly large impact on Fedora.  About 130 packages _must_ be rebuilt due to ABI breakage inherent in bumping Boost sonames. There are almost 250 client packages total.


* Proposal owners:
* Proposal owners:
<!-- What work do the feature owners have to accomplish to complete the feature in time for release? Is it a large change affecting many parts of the distribution or is it a very isolated change? What are those changes?-->
** Build will be done with Boost.Build v2 (which is upstream-sanctioned way of building Boost)
** Roughly in parallel:
*** Either:
**** If there is mass rebuild for Fedora 20, package Boost before it starts.
**** Otherwise:
***** Request a "boost" build system tag ([http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-November/159908.html discussion]) ([https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5230 tag request ticket])
***** Build boost into that tag (e.g., [http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=344226 build])
***** Post a request for rebuilds to fedora-devel (e.g., [https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-July/170272.html message])
***** Work on rebuilding dependent packages in the tag.
***** When most is done, re-tag all the packages to rawhide
*** Watch fedora-devel and assist in rebuilding broken Boost clients (by fixing the client, or Boost).


* Other developers: N/A (not a System Wide Change) <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
* Other developers: Those who depend on Boost DSO's will have to rebuild their packages. Feature owners will alleviate some of this work as indicated above, and will assist those whose packages fail to build in debugging them.
<!-- What work do other developers have to accomplish to complete the feature in time for release? Is it a large change affecting many parts of the distribution or is it a very isolated change? What are those changes?-->


* Release engineering: N/A (not a System Wide Change)  <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
* Release engineering: Side tag creation (unless there is a mass rebuild, then no assistance).
<!-- Does this feature require coordination with release engineering (e.g. changes to installer image generation or update package delivery)?  Is a mass rebuid required?  If a rel-eng ticket exists, add a link here. -->


* Policies and guidelines: N/A (not a System Wide Change) <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
* Policies and guidelines: Apart from scope, this is business as usual, so no policies, no guidelines.
<!-- Do the packaging guidelines or other documents need to be updated for this feature?  If so, does it need to happen before or after the implementation is done?  If a FPC ticket exists, add a link here. -->


== Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
== Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
<!-- What happens to systems that have had a previous versions of Fedora installed and are updated to the version containing this change? Will anything require manual configuration or data migration? Will any existing functionality be no longer supported? -->


<!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
No impact on system upgrade.
N/A (not a System Wide Change)
 
Some impact on other packages.  Historically this hasn't been too big a problem and could always be resolved before deadline.


== How To Test ==
== How To Test ==
<!-- This does not need to be a full-fledged document. Describe the dimensions of tests that this change implementation is expected to pass when it is done.  If it needs to be tested with different hardware or software configurations, indicate them.  The more specific you can be, the better the community testing can be.


Remember that you are writing this how to for interested testers to use to check out your change implementation - documenting what you do for testing is OK, but it's much better to document what *I* can do to test your change.
* No special hardware is needed.
* Integration testing simply consists of installing Boost packages (<code>yum install boost</code>) on Fedora 19 and checking that it does not break other packages (see above for a way to obtain a list of boost clients).
 
== User Experience ==
 
Expected to remain largely the same.
 
== Dependencies ==


A good "how to test" should answer these four questions:
Packages that must be rebuilt:
<code>$ repoquery -s --releasever=rawhide --whatrequires libboost\* --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=fedora | sort -u</code>
All clients:
<code>$ repoquery --releasever=rawhide --archlist=src --whatrequires boost-devel --disablerepo='*' --enablerepo=fedora-source</code>


0. What special hardware / data / etc. is needed (if any)?
Historically, coordination was necessary for Python 3 packages that Boost depends on. Similarly if there are deep changes to MPI packages (openmpi, mpich2), we should coordinate.
1. How do I prepare my system to test this change? What packages
need to be installed, config files edited, etc.?
2. What specific actions do I perform to check that the change is
working like it's supposed to?
3. What are the expected results of those actions?
-->


<!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
== Contingency Plan ==
N/A (not a System Wide Change)


== User Experience ==
If we build in a separate tag, the natural result of a catastrophic failure would be shipping Fedora with non-recent Boost.
<!-- If this change proposal is noticeable by its target audience, how will their experiences change as a result?  Describe what they will see or notice. -->
<!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
N/A (not a System Wide Change)


== Dependencies ==
If we rely on a mass rebuild, we would have to unwind the damage--Release Engineering would untag what succeeded; pmachata would revert Boost rebase; pmachata would fire another round of client rebuilds, rebuild everything against older Boost.  If _that_ fails catastrophically (e.g. new GCC rejects code in old Boost), we are doomed. Realistically, it shouldn't be a problem to patch around this.
<!-- What other packages (RPMs) depend on this package? Are there changes outside the developers' control on which completion of this change depends?  In other words, completion of another change owned by someone else and might cause you to not be able to finish on time or that you would need to coordinate?  Other upstream projects like the kernel (if this is not a kernel change)? -->


<!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
* Contingency deadline: This contingency mechanism is rather wobbly, I'm not sure when is the last time this could be invoked.
N/A (not a System Wide Change)


== Contingency Plan ==
* Blocks release?  Yes if there are client packages that are on installation media.
<!-- If you cannot complete your feature by the final development freeze, what is the backup plan?  This might be as simple as "Revert the shipped configuration".  Or it might not (e.g. rebuilding a number of dependent packages).  If you feature is not completed in time we want to assure others that other parts of Fedora will not be in jeopardy.  -->
* Contingency mechanism: (What to do?  Who will do it?) N/A (not a System Wide Change)  <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
<!-- When is the last time the contingency mechanism can be put in place?  This will typically be the beta freeze. -->
* Contingency deadline: N/A (not a System Wide Change)  <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
<!-- Does finishing this feature block the release, or can we ship with the feature in incomplete state? -->
* Blocks release? N/A (not a System Wide Change), Yes/No <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->


== Documentation ==
== Documentation ==
<!-- Is there upstream documentation on this change, or notes you have written yourself?  Link to that material here so other interested developers can get involved. -->


<!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
http://www.boost.org/users/history/version_1_54_0.html
N/A (not a System Wide Change)


== Release Notes ==
== Release Notes ==
<!-- The Fedora Release Notes inform end-users about what is new in the release.  Examples of past release notes are here: http://docs.fedoraproject.org/release-notes/ -->
<!-- The release notes also help users know how to deal with platform changes such as ABIs/APIs, configuration or data file formats, or upgrade concerns.  If there are any such changes involved in this change, indicate them here.  A link to upstream documentation will often satisfy this need.  This information forms the basis of the release notes edited by the documentation team and shipped with the release.
Release Notes are not required for initial draft of the Change Proposal but has to be completed by the Change Freeze.
-->


[[Category:ChangePageIncomplete]]
[[Category:ChangePageIncomplete]]

Revision as of 21:34, 3 July 2013

Fedora 20 Boost 1.54 Uplift

Summary

This change brings Boost 1.54.X to Fedora 20.

Owner

  • Name: Petr Machata
  • Email: pmachata redhat com
  • Release notes owner:
  • Backup contact, co-maintainer: Denis Arnaud
  • Backup contact: Benjamin De Kosnik <bkoz redhat com>

Current status

  • Targeted release: Fedora 20
  • Last updated: 2013-07-03
  • Tracker bug:

Detailed Description

The aim is to synchronize Fedora with the most recent Boost release. Because ABI stability is one of explicit Boost non-goals, this entails rebuilding of all dependent packages (or just packaging soon enough that a mass rebuild, if any, takes care of this for free). This has also always entailed yours truly assisting maintainers of client packages in decoding cryptic boostese seen in output from frustrated g++. Such care is to be expected this time around as well.

As a side note, there are currently two broad Boost-related ongoing projects: repository modularization, and conversion to CMake. The first doesn't need to concern us, as it's purely upstream issue. Boost will keep being released in a single super-tarball for time to come. The latter may concern us eventually in that will require adjustment of packaging, but that's nowhere near ready yet.

As another side-note, I am considering packaging boost-devel in modules. Frankly, boost-devel is unwieldy. Shipping 1.8MLOC in a single package defies the purpose of packaging. Unlike the abovementioned modularization effort, which is purely upstream, this one is purely in packaging, and wholly separate from upstream. I expect this to be part of Change for Fedora 21.

And finally here is the Fedora 19 Feature request, should you need it.

Benefit to Fedora

Fedora will stay relevant, as far as Boost clients and fanbois are concerned. Boost 1.54 brings three new libraries.

Scope

Rebasing Boost has a fairly large impact on Fedora. About 130 packages _must_ be rebuilt due to ABI breakage inherent in bumping Boost sonames. There are almost 250 client packages total.

  • Proposal owners:
    • Build will be done with Boost.Build v2 (which is upstream-sanctioned way of building Boost)
    • Roughly in parallel:
      • Either:
        • If there is mass rebuild for Fedora 20, package Boost before it starts.
        • Otherwise:
          • Request a "boost" build system tag (discussion) (tag request ticket)
          • Build boost into that tag (e.g., build)
          • Post a request for rebuilds to fedora-devel (e.g., message)
          • Work on rebuilding dependent packages in the tag.
          • When most is done, re-tag all the packages to rawhide
      • Watch fedora-devel and assist in rebuilding broken Boost clients (by fixing the client, or Boost).
  • Other developers: Those who depend on Boost DSO's will have to rebuild their packages. Feature owners will alleviate some of this work as indicated above, and will assist those whose packages fail to build in debugging them.
  • Release engineering: Side tag creation (unless there is a mass rebuild, then no assistance).
  • Policies and guidelines: Apart from scope, this is business as usual, so no policies, no guidelines.

Upgrade/compatibility impact

No impact on system upgrade.

Some impact on other packages. Historically this hasn't been too big a problem and could always be resolved before deadline.

How To Test

  • No special hardware is needed.
  • Integration testing simply consists of installing Boost packages (yum install boost) on Fedora 19 and checking that it does not break other packages (see above for a way to obtain a list of boost clients).

User Experience

Expected to remain largely the same.

Dependencies

Packages that must be rebuilt: $ repoquery -s --releasever=rawhide --whatrequires libboost\* --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=fedora | sort -u All clients: $ repoquery --releasever=rawhide --archlist=src --whatrequires boost-devel --disablerepo='*' --enablerepo=fedora-source

Historically, coordination was necessary for Python 3 packages that Boost depends on. Similarly if there are deep changes to MPI packages (openmpi, mpich2), we should coordinate.

Contingency Plan

If we build in a separate tag, the natural result of a catastrophic failure would be shipping Fedora with non-recent Boost.

If we rely on a mass rebuild, we would have to unwind the damage--Release Engineering would untag what succeeded; pmachata would revert Boost rebase; pmachata would fire another round of client rebuilds, rebuild everything against older Boost. If _that_ fails catastrophically (e.g. new GCC rejects code in old Boost), we are doomed. Realistically, it shouldn't be a problem to patch around this.

  • Contingency deadline: This contingency mechanism is rather wobbly, I'm not sure when is the last time this could be invoked.
  • Blocks release? Yes if there are client packages that are on installation media.

Documentation

http://www.boost.org/users/history/version_1_54_0.html

Release Notes

Retrieved from "https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Changes/F20Boost154&oldid=343788"