-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 24
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Serve run_exports.json
in conda channels
#51
Conversation
Hi @conda-incubator/steering, any thoughts or feedback here? Thanks 🙏 |
I think this is a great idea and will also simplify rattler-build! I am leaning towards adding an empty run exports for all packages (instead of leaving out those that don't have it) so that one knows that these were considered. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We should state explicitly if we allow patching and if the values in this file taken precedence over the ones in the artifacts.
good point @beckermr! There is also |
Right now If the community decides that's convenient, then we can create another (smaller) CEP to change that. I think I have read feedback from some users (cannot recall who, sorry) who were against run_exports patching. |
TIL! I'll check how it works and add it to the CEP. Thanks Wolf! |
@wolfv, my thinking here is that the source of truth for all available packages is still That said, we could always ignore the differences between both. Listing all files might incur some extra download size but will for sure list everything that was analysed, which should make debugging easier... The more I think about it, the more partial I am to your proposal 😬 |
Added my current view regarding precedence and patching to the CEP. Happy to revisit, but for now I think the easiest is to consider |
For the record, I plan to call a vote for this in two weeks (next conda community call), so if you have any comments before the vote, this is the time. Thanks! 🙏 |
Suggested some minor tweaks, but I am in favor of this proposal. |
Thank you @chenghlee! Added your points in the new commits. |
@conda-incubator/steering, I would like to call a vote for this CEP. This vote falls under the "Enhancement Proposal Approval" policy of the conda governance policy, It needs 60% of the Steering Council to vote yes to pass. To vote, please leave yes, no or abstain as comments below. If you have questions concerning the proposal, you may also leave a comment or code review. This vote will end on August 3rd, 2023 End of Day, Anywhere on Earth (AoE). |
yes |
Yes |
yes |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes!
@jaimergp Any reason to expand the vote from 7 to 16 days BTW? |
@jezdez To be able to invoke the timeout quorum rules and have two in-call reminders 😁 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes!
Co-authored-by: msarahan <msarahan@users.noreply.github.com>
Yes. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes please!
Hello team! The vote concluded last week on Aug 3rd at 23:59 AOE (Aug 4th 11:59 UTC). I have now reviewed the votes and these are the results:
-- I will now update the PR to reflect the status and mint a CEP number. Since the vote for this PR was started after #8, this CEP will be minted the number 11. |
Sorry, small mistake, this CEP will get number 12, not 11. |
As discussed in conda/conda-index#102 and this conda community meeting.
cc @chenghlee