On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 14:13:44 -0400
Avram Lubkin <aviso(a)rockhopper.net> wrote:
I'm looking for some clarification on the naming requirements
In the EPEL 7 in Python 3 Plan Draft , it specifies that SRPM names
can't conflict with RHEL SRPM names, but in the Limited Arch Packages
section of EPEL: Packaging, it seems to imply the SRPM name would
be the same, but the release number would be pretended with "0.".
Could someone please clarify?
If, in fact, the name can be the same, it will make it much easier to
provide Python 3 packages for EPEL since a separate package would not
be required in the Fedora Package DB.
So, here's the thing (at least as I understand it):
koji operates on source packages.
If there's a package in RHEL called 'foo' and also one in EPEL called
'foo' it will use the epel one in all cases for everything that foo
So, with the limited arch packages this means that _ALL_ things
building in koji will use the epel package. The reason for the
prepended 0 is so that users don't install the epel package and instead
get the newer rhel version. The limited arch guideline also says you
should try and keep the package as close as possible to the rhel
So, if we had say: python-foobar-1.0-1.el7.src.rpm in rhel that made a
python-foobar-1.0-1.noarch.rpm and then we made a epel
python-foobar-1.0-1.el7.src.rpm that had
python3-foobar-1.0-1.noarch.rpm it would mean anything that builds
against python-foobar in epel would break (it would be not found). End
users would be ok, but buildroots could be broken by it.
So we are kinda in a lerch here... I think the best way is just new
packages with python3-whatever.