On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:49 AM Michel Alexandre Salim
<michel(a)michel-slm.name> wrote:
On 5/1/20 1:10 AM, Petr Pisar wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 12:32:26PM -0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
>> Generally speaking (I can make this a separate thread if that helps) - do we
>> expect every package in EPEL8 to also be built for EPEL8-playground, either
>> through package.cfg or by building directly from the epel8-playground
>> branch?
>
> There is no such rule, but in my opinion, it is welcomed for exactly the terrible
> experience anybody gets when he tries to use epel8-playground.
>
Right, but if some package repos are missing packages.cfg and the
maintainer does not build it separately for epel8-playground, it is a
terrible experience for other packages depending on this missing package
-- everytime the maintainer submits an epel8 build, the epel8-playground
target will report a build failure.
> The purpose of epel8-playground is to diverge when needed. That's why the epel8
> branch contains package.cfg by default.
>
That seems to be the case for packages branched normally (fedpkg
request-branch). *However* I've seen some packages where the epel8
branch and master branch are identical -- not sure how it happens, maybe
the committer has force-push permission? Or is there a way to request
that a branch be cloned from another branch instead of created from scratch?
I prefer my EPEL branches to be this way when possible. And it's
simple enough to do
fedpkg clone <package>
cd <package>
fedpkg switch-branch epel8
git merge master
fedpkg push
Nothing fancy about it, as long as you are the maintainer of the epel branch.
Troy