CEP: Recipe serialization in packages

[wolfv]

Rendered version: ✏️ https://github.com/wolfv/ceps/blob/cep-recipe-serialization/cep-recipe-serialization.md

[dholth]

Why not .json? Do we still need info/recipe/meta.yaml ?

[wolfv]

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).

[jezdez]

@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.

[baszalmstra]

yes

[wolfv]

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

[wolfv]

@marcelotrevisani @jakirkham @cj-wright @mbargull last chance to vote!

[chenghlee]

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.

[mbargull]

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.

[mbargull]

(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.

[jakirkham]

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 🤷‍♂️)