Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org writes:
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 03:37:11PM -0500, Alexander Scheel wrote:
I second what Robbie has said as well.
I am against the thought of this change.
As my team has found out within Red Hat, this repo split has been a large PITA. Because RHEL also won't self-host and many sub-packages are missing from released bits that are otherwise available in e.g., BUILDROOT, building our bits in COPR for QE to test has been an impossible battle. After close to a year, this use case still hasn't been enabled internally.
But that's not what's being proposed.
Isn't it? Some packages go in main, and others go in light (or whatever it'd be called)?
We've had different repos in Fedora for years -- the main repo, plus updates, plus updates-testing. And we have the separate modularity one now. Fedora is going to continue to self-host, and doesn't have whatever business reason RHEL has for not shipping the buildroot.
I think that conflates uses of the word "different".
The package sets between main/updates/updates-testing are not meaningfully different: almost all packages in updates/updates-testing already have a version in main. That is, you would have a complete system with pretty much every package available just by setting up main.
That's of course not how RHEL-style repo separation works: packages in AppStream, for instance, or BuildRoot, are wholly disjoint from those in BaseOS. (This is also how generalized modules behave.)
What I believe Alex and I are arguing is that there is no technical advantage to RHEL-style repo-splitting where some packages go in one repo and a non-overlapping set goes in another. Rather, it incurs a large burden both on maintainers and end-users.
Thanks, --Robbie