On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 21:59:55 -0600
Dave Johansen <davejohansen@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree that how to handle SCLs can get really mess really fast, but
> a lot of projects are jumping on the "modern C++" bandwagon and
> allows devtoolset is low risk, easy to do and enables a lot of
> packages to be built with EPEL that otherwise wouldn't be.

It would be low risk if that was the only SCL in the repo.
My understanding is that they are all there in the one repo, so if we
enable that, everyone could start using anything thats in there.

On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 12:52:46 -0400
Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 25 August 2016 at 02:14, dani <dani@letai.org.il> wrote:
> > When I proposed importing gcc-5 to EPEL6 back in 04/2016 (
> > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/F5JXEYPKQY77NRBCL4MNUBS3K2YYBBTU/
> > ) the response was an unequivocal no, EPEL does not install
> > to /opt/ , so it dies right there.
> >
> > Now you are proposing the same ( devtoolset/scl installs to /opt
> > except for the wrapper call) but using a scheme that is somewhat
> > less convenient (In scl the binutils and gcc have to be coupled,
> > and as noted the imported gcc suite is incomplete), much less
> > frequent (the most updated version is gcc-5.2, while I maintain
> > both gcc-5.x and gcc-6.1), and much less complete (I import
> > everything but gcc-gnat, while devtoolset4 only has gcc,gcc-c++ and
> > gcc-gfortran. No gcc-objc, no gcc-go, no cpp, and none of the libs
> > (cilk, gccjit, atomic, asan etc...).
> >
> > I'm still building and maintaining both gcc and bintutils for my own
> > purposes, which are based off of fc24 srpms, and with optionally
> > gcc-c++ specs file hardcoded to use binutils tools at the new
> > prefix so use of env-modules is not required.
> >
> > I'm just wandering why the different treatment - the automatic
> > knee-jerk reaction of dismissal to a newbie proposal vs. accepting
> > the exact same proposal (although wrapped so it's less convenient
> > to use) when it comes from someone else.
> >
>
> You are misreading both responses. There is no knee-jerk acceptance
> and there wasn't a knee jerk dismissal because you were a newbie.
> Please don't find malice where none was intended.

What smooge said. ;)

The reason SCL's are under opt is that they got a namespace approved
for that purpose:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Limited_usage_of_.2Fopt.2C_.2Fetc.2Fopt.2C_and_.2Fvar.2Fopt

"Currently, we have allocated /opt/fedora/scls, /etc/opt/fedora/scls,
and /var/opt/fedora/scls for use by Software Collections. "

Perhaps you could explain exactly what you want to propose here again?
Just epel6? or 7 as well? Do you have co-maintainers in case you get
busy, etc?

I think we are all open to ideas how to do things better, but it's
really not clear what is best or even exactly what is proposed. ;)