Packages without the Rawhide branch?

[Matěj Cepl]

Hi,

this is a question which I have encountered couple of times, but 
I have always forgot to ask about it: is it possible to have 
a package without Rawhide (devel) branch?

I have just created (and got approved) python-mako1.0 as 
a compatibility package for EPEL-6. When I asked for the new 
repo for it, I expect to get also devel/Rawhide branch for it.  
However, I don't see any purpose of it. Should I just orphan the 
devel branch of it? Or is there a way how to get a package 
without it in the first place? Shouldn't it be possible?

Best,

Matěj

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 20:48:02 +0100
Matěj Cepl <mcepl(a)cepl.eu&gt; wrote:

>  Hi,
>  
>  this is a question which I have encountered couple of times, but 
>  I have always forgot to ask about it: is it possible to have 
>  a package without Rawhide (devel) branch? 
Nope. 

>  I have just created (and got approved) python-mako1.0 as 
>  a compatibility package for EPEL-6. When I asked for the new 
>  repo for it, I expect to get also devel/Rawhide branch for it.  
>  However, I don't see any purpose of it. Should I just orphan the 
>  devel branch of it? Or is there a way how to get a package 
>  without it in the first place? Shouldn't it be possible? 
Yes, just retire and add a dead.package the devel branch. 

There's no better way to do this currently.

kevin

[Matěj Cepl]

On 2015-01-28, 21:10 GMT, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > I have just created (and got approved) python-mako1.0 as 
> > a compatibility package for EPEL-6. When I asked for the new 
> > repo for it, I expect to get also devel/Rawhide branch for it.  
> > However, I don't see any purpose of it. Should I just orphan the 
> > devel branch of it? Or is there a way how to get a package 
> > without it in the first place? Shouldn't it be possible?
>
>  Yes, just retire and add a dead.package the devel branch. 
>
>  There's no better way to do this currently. 
And couldn't we make the script which builds the repos 
understand some syntax extension to do it? E.g., what about

    New Package SCM Request
    =======================
    Package Name: foo
    Short Description: fobricates bar
    Upstream URL: http://pkgname-project.org/pkgname
    Owners: jdoe
    Branches: el6 epel7 -devel
    InitialCC:

Perhaps it would do just the retirement of devel branch.

What about that?

Best,

Matěj

[Peter Hutterer]

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 01:04:34AM +0100, Matěj Cepl wrote:
>  On 2015-01-28, 21:10 GMT, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>  >> I have just created (and got approved) python-mako1.0 as 
>  >> a compatibility package for EPEL-6. When I asked for the new 
>  >> repo for it, I expect to get also devel/Rawhide branch for it.  
>  >> However, I don't see any purpose of it. Should I just orphan the 
>  >> devel branch of it? Or is there a way how to get a package 
>  >> without it in the first place? Shouldn't it be possible?
>  >
>  > Yes, just retire and add a dead.package the devel branch. 
>  >
>  > There's no better way to do this currently.
>  
>  And couldn't we make the script which builds the repos 
>  understand some syntax extension to do it? E.g., what about
>  
>      New Package SCM Request
>      =======================
>      Package Name: foo
>      Short Description: fobricates bar
>      Upstream URL: http://pkgname-project.org/pkgname
>      Owners: jdoe
>      Branches: el6 epel7 -devel
>      InitialCC:
>  
>  Perhaps it would do just the retirement of devel branch.
>  
>  What about that? 
I don't have numbers on how many packages have this need but I predict that
the efforts to get this to work, test it, deploy it, etc. are vastly greater
than the time saved not having to retire a package :)

Cheers,
   Peter

[Matěj Cepl]

On 2015-01-29, 01:29 GMT, Peter Hutterer wrote:
>  I don't have numbers on how many packages have this need but I
> predict that
>  the efforts to get this to work, test it, deploy it, etc. are vastly greater
>  than the time saved not having to retire a package :) 
Certainly, but

a) we are geeks, so we want to have things Working Right™,
b) when the work on pkgdb is open 
   (https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5931) it is really 
   not a big deal to add one more feature.

Matěj

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 09:09:04 +0100
Matěj Cepl <mcepl(a)cepl.eu&gt; wrote:

>  On 2015-01-29, 01:29 GMT, Peter Hutterer wrote:
>  > I don't have numbers on how many packages have this need but I
>  > predict that the efforts to get this to work, test it, deploy it,
>  > etc. are vastly greater than the time saved not having to retire a
>  > package :)
>  
>  Certainly, but
>  
>  a) we are geeks, so we want to have things Working Right™, 
Sure. If I had the time to get every little thing working right, I
would sure love it. ;) Finding the time for corner cases is sometimes
difficult though. 

>  b) when the work on pkgdb is open 
>     (https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5931) it is really 
>     not a big deal to add one more feature. 
Sure, please feel free to suggest it in a ticket and/or help work to
make it happen. 

kevin

[Till Maas]

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 01:04:34AM +0100, Matěj Cepl wrote:

>  And couldn't we make the script which builds the repos 
>  understand some syntax extension to do it? E.g., what about 
>  Perhaps it would do just the retirement of devel branch.
>  
>  What about that? 
The process is going to change soon:
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5931

There is at least an interface that allows to not select the devel
branch. But I am not sure what is happening then.

Regards
Till