conda
CEP: Recipe serialization in packages
Rendered version: ✏️ https://github.com/wolfv/ceps/blob/cep-recipe-serialization/cep-recipe-serialization.md
I changed this CEP a little - most of the CEP is now "implementation specific" and serves as documentation of what rattler-build does.
However, the CEP does require alternative build tools to implement a rendered recipe, and also requires a new file to be added to the package (info/used_build_tool.json).
@conda/steering-council
This vote falls under the "Enhancement Proposal Approval" policy of the conda governance policy, please vote and/or comment on this proposal at your earliest convenience.
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 2024-07-16, End of Day, Anywhere on Earth (AoE). This is an extended voting period due to summer holiday time in the Northern Hemisphere.
Please use the following form to vote:
@xhochy (Uwe Korn)
- [x] yes
- [ ] no
- [ ] abstain
@cj-wright (Christopher J. 'CJ' Wright)
- [ ] yes
- [ ] no
- [ ] abstain
@mariusvniekerk (Marius van Niekerk)
- [x] yes
- [ ] no
- [ ] abstain
@goanpeca (Gonzalo Peña-Castellanos)
- [x] yes
- [ ] no
- [ ] abstain
@chenghlee (Cheng H. Lee)
- [ ] yes
- [x] no
- [ ] abstain
@ocefpaf (Filipe Fernandes)
- [x] yes
- [ ] no
- [ ] abstain
@marcelotrevisani (Marcelo Duarte Trevisani)
- [ ] yes
- [ ] no
- [ ] abstain
@msarahan (Michael Sarahan)
- [x] yes
- [ ] no
- [ ] abstain
@mbargull (Marcel Bargull)
- [ ] yes
- [x] no
- [ ] abstain
@jakirkham (John Kirkham)
- [x] yes
- [ ] no
- [ ] abstain
@jezdez (Jannis Leidel)
- [x] yes
- [ ] no
- [ ] abstain
@wolfv (Wolf Vollprecht)
- [x] yes
- [ ] no
- [ ] abstain
@jaimergp (Jaime Rodríguez-Guerra)
- [x] yes
- [ ] no
- [ ] abstain
@kkraus14 (Keith Kraus)
- [x] yes
- [ ] no
- [ ] abstain
@baszalmstra (Bas Zalmstra)
- [x] yes
- [ ] no
- [ ] abstain
For the record: voted "no" because while I like the ideas presented in this CEP, I don't think the CEP as written is ready to be adopted as a specification. IMO, various unanswered questions/comments need to be addressed before adoption, and we should better separate behavioral specifications from implementation details.
I think it is good to have these parts of the build output/process specified which is why I support to have a proposal for it here. I do agree with Cheng in that this is not yet ready to be put in, though, since the "Specification" section is a bit light in detail and the bigger part of the text, i.e., description of implementation details, are likely to change, so nothing we'd set in stone here.
(tried to use the checkbox, but had issues with it for some reason)
@jakirkham It's really odd that it doesn't like to accept your edit :/. I checked "yes" on your behalf.
Thanks Marcel! 🙏
Yeah this happened to me a couple times. So just used "approved" to mean the same thing. Think it is because I tried on my iPhone with GitHub Mobile (not sure why it can't check a box or why it makes an empty edit though 🤷♂️)
The vote is closed, and we have the following result:
Total voters: 15 (valid: 13 = 86.67%)
Yes votes (11 / 84.62%):
- @xhochy (Uwe Korn)
- @mariusvniekerk (Marius van Niekerk)
- @goanpeca (Gonzalo Peña-Castellanos)
- @ocefpaf (Filipe Fernandes)
- @msarahan (Michael Sarahan)
- @jakirkham (John Kirkham)
- @jezdez (Jannis Leidel)
- @wolfv (Wolf Vollprecht)
- @jaimergp (Jaime Rodríguez-Guerra)
- @kkraus14 (Keith Kraus)
- @baszalmstra (Bas Zalmstra)
No votes (2 / 15.38%)):
- @chenghlee (Cheng H. Lee)
- @mbargull (Marcel Bargull)
Abstain votes (0 / 0.00%):
Not voted (2):
- @cj-wright (Christopher J. 'CJ' Wright)
- @marcelotrevisani (Marcelo Duarte Trevisani)
Invalid votes (0):
Thus we reached quorum and enough YES votes to mark this as accepted. 🎉