<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dne 4.4.2013 15:47, Miloslav Trmač
napsal(a):<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAM+Wa1dMDG2zxh6kDNdPevtecVgmJ3GuGpQx5S74u+sBfioEzg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Vít
Ondruch <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:vondruch@redhat.com" target="_blank">vondruch@redhat.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>Dne 3.4.2013 18:15, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a):<br>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at
5:02 PM, Vít Ondruch <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:vondruch@redhat.com"
target="_blank">vondruch@redhat.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>Dne 3.4.2013 15:59, Miloslav Trmač
napsal(a):<br>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at
3:22 PM, Vít Ondruch <span
dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:vondruch@redhat.com"
target="_blank">vondruch@redhat.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<div class="gmail_extra">... and
now, can we be specific? No
handwaving, how would parallel
installation _actually_ benefit
you? How would the new system
look like and work?<br>
<div class="gmail_quote"> <br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Now, there comes security fix
for Rails. Typically it
impacts every stable Rails
branch, i.e. it should be
applied to two packages. But
you already denied me to use
cherry-pick straight forward,
since I am not working with
one package/repository but
with two packages. So again
more work then it necessarily
needed to be.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I can't see that parallel
installation would help.
Because there would be one git
repo for all versions? That's
orthogonal to having parallel
installation of RPMs.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
Yes, they would be in one git repo with
single maintainer (or group of
maintainers).</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>AFAICS that is a Fedora dist-git concern
that is completely unrelated to parallel
installation. Fedora dist-git could support
a single git repo for multiple packages
(with different names) without rpm
supporting parallel installation.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
Since .spec file is named the same as package, then you
cannot merge straight forward the changes from one
package into another.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>That is again a Fedora policy, not a RPM requirement.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Ok, so shall I read it an "go ahead, and propose Fedora policy
change, that although package name includes version, the .spec file
should be named without the version."?<br>
<br>
Actually it would make sense to me. However, it makes exception from
exception, which is fail.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAM+Wa1dMDG2zxh6kDNdPevtecVgmJ3GuGpQx5S74u+sBfioEzg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>Actually then somebody comes and he
things that he doesn't need just Rails
3.0, but he needs specifically Rails
3.0.5, so he well do another new package
rails305. You cannot stop this explosion
of various versioned modules.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yes, you cannot. How is that different
in the case where rpm supports/doesn't
support parallel installation?<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
There might be defined upgrade path, i.e. you might be
able to define that your branch is for Rails 3.0. In
RubyGems, we would define it as as ~> 3.0.0
dependency [1].<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Now I can define it using the package name, and even
modify it later using Obsoletes:/Provides:.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAM+Wa1dMDG2zxh6kDNdPevtecVgmJ3GuGpQx5S74u+sBfioEzg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<div>I can't see that parallel
installation would help. We
need to create and maintain as
many packages as users require
in either case.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
It would help, since I could focus on
packaging new rails version instead of
fixing compatibility issues of current
applications in Fedora with the framework
they use.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The two are again, AFAICS, completely
orthogonal to parallel installation
support. Instead of fixing compatibility
issues the current applications could just
depend on rails23 or something. Not having
parallel installation does not automatically
compel anyone to port applications; this is
primarily determined by Fedora
policy/preference and Fedora tooling, not
rpm limitations.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
You cannot think about parallel installation without
broader scope. You might find a lot of orthogonal things
in this issue. Something is RPM issue, something else
YUM, something else Fedora policies. This gives always
freedom to claim that it could be done differently, not
in my component etc.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Well, sure, what Bohuslav said. Some people want
Fedora to accept such RPM packages, some people want RPM
support, some people might even want Fedora to ship
unmodified gems/jars/eggs without RPM.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div><br>
As you probably already know, there is fairly strong
resistance against Fedora shipping many versions because
some of as feel that we wouldn't be able to maintain them
properly.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I feel that we do so and we are not able to maintain it properly. So
there would not be any change in this regard.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAM+Wa1dMDG2zxh6kDNdPevtecVgmJ3GuGpQx5S74u+sBfioEzg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
That doesn't prevent us from discussing RPM features that
Fedora wouldn't use (but might be useful for coprs and
RHEL). It also doesn't prevent us from discussing running
of unmodified upstream packages on a Fedora system. But
we need to distill what the goals of the discussion and
the _actual requirements_ are.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I was never speaking about unmodified upstream packages, this just
derails the discussion.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAM+Wa1dMDG2zxh6kDNdPevtecVgmJ3GuGpQx5S74u+sBfioEzg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<br>
If you need Fedora policy to support multiple versions,
and don't care about RPM, please say so.<br>
</div>
<div>If you need RPM to support multiple versions, and don't
care about Fedora policy, please say so (and suggest
practical semantics for (yum update)).<br>
</div>
<div>If you need unmodified upstream deployment systems and
unmodified upstream packages with minimal Fedora/RPM
interference/involvement, please say so.<br>
</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>You've argued for RPM support, but it seems that the
difficulties you actually encounter are related to Fedora
policies, and I wanted to make that clear.<br>
</div>
<div> Mirek<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
That's both, RPM and Fedora plolicies and don't forget about YUM.
They are not independent.<br>
<br>
<br>
Vít<br>
</body>
</html>