On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 6:18 AM Omair Majid <omajid(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Hey,
Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> writes:
> Keep in mind that this isn't exactly the first time we've done this
> either: the .NET runtime is similarly screwy for its bootstrap
> process, and that's split across a couple of source packages.
>
> At this point, we hold our noses and hope for the best. At least
> there's a chance to reduce the pain with .NET over time as the Red Hat
> .NET folks work to improve upstream. There's basically zero chance for
> improvement with OpenJDK because of the nature of the upstream and how
> old and crufty they are.
I know it's tangential to the main discussion, but since .NET was called
out by name, I would like to get your thoughts on this. What would you
say are the biggest concerns with the .NET setup?
Here's how I understand the current state. There's a single source
package for each major version of .NET (dotnet6.0, dotnet7.0.). That
source is compiled into the complete .NET SDK+Runtime for each version.
There are no source or binary dependencies between versions. Each
version is built/updated independently. Only the first build for each
major version requires a full bootstrap (using prebuilt binaries), but
that's a one time. Subsequent builds of each .NET major version use the
previous build of that major version of .NET.
With that context, what primary concerns do you think we should be
focusing on?
That's actually a lot better than it was when I helped with dotnet
package review and bootstrap with 3.1.
The main worry I have is how we're going to be able to build dotnet
for a new architecture when nothing exists. RISC-V is the next big
architecture, but the build for that will be difficult.
It would also be good to have packaging guidelines for .NET
applications, since there's a number of server and desktop Linux apps
written in .NET languages that people would want to bring to Fedora.
--
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!