gnunet-developers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Packaging problems


From: Willow Liquorice
Subject: Re: Packaging problems
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2022 16:37:58 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1

Still, using the proposed high-level categorisation of GNUnet components would be handy for documentation purposes, even if the repo structure only vaguely reflects it, as a lot of service names aren't very indicative of their function or importance to the uninitiated.

I'm taking after the Python standard library docs in that respect, where modules are categorised into broad domains first, before being sorted within those categories.

On 03/06/2022 20:44, Christian Grothoff wrote:
Having many packages doesn't usually make it easier for packagers, it just means that now they have to deal with even more sources, and create more package specifications. Moreover, build times go up, as you now need to run configure many times. Worse, you then need to find out in which order to build things, and what are dependencies. It basically makes it worse in all aspects.

Another big issue is that right now, I at least notice if I break the build of an application and can fix it. Same if I run analysis tools: they at least get to see the entire codebase, and can warn us if something breaks. If we move those out-of-tree, they'll be even more neglected. What we can (and do do) is mark really badly broken applications as 'experimental' and require --with-experimental to build those. That's IMO better than moving stuff out of tree.

Also, you probably don't want to split things as you proposed: GNS depends on VPN and SETU! SET is supposed to become obsolete, but consensus still needs it until SETU is extended to match the SET capabilities.

Finally, as for build times, have you even tried 'make -j 16' or something like that? Multicore rules ;-).

Happy hacking!

Christian


On 6/2/22 17:29, Willow Liquorice wrote:
Right. Perhaps the onus is on the developers (i.e. us) to make things a bit easier, then?

To be honest, I barely understand how the GNUnet project is put together on a source code level, let alone how packaging is done. One of the things I'm going to do with the Sphinx docs is provide a high-level overview of how the main repo is structured.

On the subject of complexity, I attempted to disentangle that awful internal dependency graph a while ago, to get a better idea of how GNUnet works. I noticed that it's possible to divide the subsystems up into closely-related groups:
     * a "backbone" (CADET, DHT, CORE, and friends),
     * a VPN suite,
     * a GNS suite,
     * and a set operations suite (SET, SETI, SETU).

A bunch of smaller "application layer" things (psyc+social+secushare, conversation, fs, secretsharing+consensus+voting) then rest on top of one or more of those suites.

I seem to recall that breaking up the main repo has been discussed before, and I think it got nowhere because no agreement was reached on where the breaks should be made. My position is that those "applications" (which, IIRC, are in various states of "barely maintained") should be moved to their own repos, and the main repo be broken up into those four software suites.

As Maxime says, GNUnet takes a long time to compile (when it actually does - I'm having problems with that right now), and presumably quite a while to test too. The obvious way to reduce those times is to simply *reduce the amount of code being compiled and tested*. Breaking up the big repo would achieve that quite nicely.

More specifically related to packaging, would it be a good idea to look into CD (Continuous Delivery) to complement our current CI setup? It could make things easier on package maintainers. Looks like Debian has a CI system we might be able to make use of, and all we'd need to do is point out the test suite in the package that goes to the Debian archive.






reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]