I got this mail forwarded, I'm not on any of the lists, don't know too much about Debian packaging, but generally attend the C++ standards meeting.
On 10/11/18 16:32, Baurzhan Ismagulov wrote:
----- Forwarded message from Bill Gatliff bgat@billgatliff.com -----
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:00:42 -0500 From: Bill Gatliff bgat@billgatliff.com To: Wookey wookey@wookware.org Cc: cross-distro@lists.linaro.org Subject: Re: Fw: Debian packaging, dependency management and the C++ standards meeting
I'd be interested in helping out. I'm not an official Debian developer, but I've done a fair amount of packaging, am pretty skilled in C++, have a strong background in embedded work and presentations, and don't mind being That Guy when necessary.
No interest in showing up unannounced or solo, though. Ideas?
Well, while the meeting lasts the whole week, tooling will probably only discussed in one single evening session. If you're actually interested in showing up, contact Titus and ask him to fix the date. But the admin telco for the meeting in San Diego will be only on Oct 26; Titus might not be able to fix the date before that.
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 10:05 AM Wookey wookey@wookware.org wrote:
This came up on debian-devel, and seems like a very cross-distro thing, albeit not ARM-specific, so reposting here. Anyone here able to explain/interested in explaining distro-thinking to the C++ standards people (in San Diego)?
----- Forwarded message from Jussi Pakkanen jpakkane@gmail.com -----
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 19:56:29 +0300 From: Jussi Pakkanen jpakkane@gmail.com To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org Subject: Debian packaging, dependency management and the C++ standards meeting
Hi
Last week I was at CppCon, which is the biggest C++ developers' conference in the world. There were a lot of talks about dependencies, packaging and deployment and other such things related to Debian. A representative snippet can be seen in this video starting at 1:13:56:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjdCxXdjaSA
The tl/dr version is that people running the C++ standardisation work do not really have knowledge about the way Debian does things and because of this might not take relevant things into consideration. As an example there is a rising trend of "discard ABI stability, static link everything and recompile the world on every change" vibe going on similar to most new system programming languages. This would make things difficult for Debian due to obvious reasons.
They specifically mention that there is a standardisation meeting next month (in San Diego?) and that if people from Debian and other groups underrepresented in the C++ standardisation process were to attend, they would like to talk to them to understand their requirements. This specific thing is mentioned in the video at 1:17, the person in the white shirt answering the question is Titus Winters, Google's C++ lead (of some sort, don't know the specifics) and he is a big advocate of static linking everything.
But there are people in the C++ committee who need stable ABIs, but often this can be restricted to specific parts of the interface, while other parts can be linked in statically.
I can't attend due to geographical reasons but would there be someone who could and would be interested? It would probably be beneficial to have Debian people there to tell about those specific requirements, because it seems like most people on the standardisation committee do not really have a good grasp on what they are. In fact it might make sense to send distro people in general, since the requirements are very similar for Red Hat, Ubuntu, SuSE et al. If you have contacts in those organisations who would be interested in this issue feel free to send them links to this email thread. I know Red Hat at least has sent people to the meeting in the past but on the language/stdlib side, not for packaging (that I know of at least).
Yes, typically the some GCC people from Red Hat are at the meeting. They know ABI requirements pretty well (GCC introduced a new linking scheme for this in GCC 5.0) but probably don't know the specifics of packaging.
An alternative, or parallel, approach could be to write a paper outlining the issues and submitting it to the standard body. This does require someone to be physically at the meeting and to present the paper and its conclusions to the participants and be ready to answer questions. (I have never actually done this myself, so the above description might have flaws.)
This description is pretty accurate.
Having a position paper co-signed by several different distros could be beneficial in making our views heard.
Definitely. But the deadline for this meeting was last Moday. But for an author it would probably be useful to be at the Meeting (at least for the SG15 evening session) to get a feeling of what the different people in the committee think. And try to find co-authors inside the committee. And then write a paper for the next meeting Feb 18-23, 2019 in Kona, HI.
Detlef