Re: Proposing an EPEL packaging SIG
Dne 14. 09. 20 v 10:11 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 09:50:45AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Reading this proposal and with the EPEL8 experience, where there was not
> even wiki page, where I could state that I don't care about EPEL and I
> had to reply into every BZ independently, wouldn't it make sense to move
> EPEL into its own dist-git namespace?
>
> I guess that in the CVS days, having EPEL branch was fine. During PkgDB
> days, where we could assign maintainer to each branch, it was still
> fine. But since we lost this ability, isn't it time to rethink the
> setup?
We have the ability back, see the answers from Neal Gompa.
Well, yes, right. But apparently, it is not fully working. E.g. looking
at Ruby [1], it says I am EPEL maintainer while there is certainly not
EPEL branch. Also, there might be EPEL maintainer (actually Pagure lists
just BZ assignee), but I am not sure if they are listed between
"members" or not. I cannot set my preferred default. So there is still
lot to desire.
From this POV, the separate namespace could have more advantages.
> I think this would give more power to EPEL SIG and give relieve
> to Fedora packagers.
What you are saying would make sense if there was only the EPEL SIG.
But we also have plenty of packagers who do care about their EPEL packages,
Do we know the ratio? I am not saying that we don't but I don't see
"plenty" to be anything we should base any decision.
and they would be inconvenienced by such a split. It seems that
there
are even people who like to keep one spec file for all branches, incl.
EPEL.
People still might have locally one repository with two remotes, so I
probably missing what is the point here. Having to pull EPEL branch or
not is also difference, but I don't see we should adding this into equation.
Vít
[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby