Hi,
I have packaged a few drupal modules for use on the upcoming fedora insight. I only noted that drupal 6 in EL is actually called drupal6 when Eric brought it up in the flexinode [1] review.
This is a little messy:
EL-5 and EL-6 now have two separate packages drupal (which is drupal 5) and drupal6. They are installable in parallel.
Fedora has a Package called drupal which really is drupal 6.
Fedora has a bunch of drupal-modules called drupal-modulename with a version of 6.x-1.2 (which is what upstream uses to show that this is for the drupal 6 range).
Eric suggests in the review [1] that I call the package drupal6-flexinode-1.2 instead of drupal-flexinode-6.x-1.2 - but that name would only work for EPEL as the other drupal modules which are already in Fedora are following the 6.x-1.2 naming scheme.
I'm not very experienced wrt. EPEL packaging so I may be missing best practices here but having a completely separate drupal stack for EPEL (with two reviews per package ...) feels very wrong to me.
Not sure how feasible it is wrt. the progress of fedora insight but I'd think that the best way forward would be to leave EL-5 on Drupal 5, update the drupal package in EL-6 to Drupal 6.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=642856 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569833
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 10/15/2010 06:02 AM, Sven Lankes wrote:
Fedora has a bunch of drupal-modules called drupal-modulename with a version of 6.x-1.2 (which is what upstream uses to show that this is for the drupal 6 range).
I was a bit over-cautious when I saw the "X" in the versioning. I spoke to several folks over in #fedora-devel which raised the concern that the X might have problems down the road if they ever changed the X to a number.
Eric suggests in the review [1] that I call the package drupal6-flexinode-1.2 instead of drupal-flexinode-6.x-1.2 - but that name would only work for EPEL as the other drupal modules which are already in Fedora are following the 6.x-1.2 naming scheme.
If this is already being done on other packages (I didn't look) then perhaps keeping the same throughout would be a good thing.
Personally I'm not a fan of maintaining the same package with different names. Just doesn't feel like a good solution to me.
I'm not very experienced wrt. EPEL packaging so I may be missing best practices here but having a completely separate drupal stack for EPEL (with two reviews per package ...) feels very wrong to me.
Not sure how feasible it is wrt. the progress of fedora insight but I'd think that the best way forward would be to leave EL-5 on Drupal 5, update the drupal package in EL-6 to Drupal 6.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=642856 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569833
- --Eric
Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 10/15/2010 06:02 AM, Sven Lankes wrote:
Fedora has a bunch of drupal-modules called drupal-modulename with a version of 6.x-1.2 (which is what upstream uses to show that this is for the drupal 6 range).
I was a bit over-cautious when I saw the "X" in the versioning. I spoke to several folks over in #fedora-devel which raised the concern that the X might have problems down the road if they ever changed the X to a number.
Eric suggests in the review [1] that I call the package drupal6-flexinode-1.2 instead of drupal-flexinode-6.x-1.2 - but that name would only work for EPEL as the other drupal modules which are already in Fedora are following the 6.x-1.2 naming scheme.
If this is already being done on other packages (I didn't look) then perhaps keeping the same throughout would be a good thing.
Personally I'm not a fan of maintaining the same package with different names. Just doesn't feel like a good solution to me.
I'm not very experienced wrt. EPEL packaging so I may be missing best practices here but having a completely separate drupal stack for EPEL (with two reviews per package ...) feels very wrong to me.
Not sure how feasible it is wrt. the progress of fedora insight but I'd think that the best way forward would be to leave EL-5 on Drupal 5, update the drupal package in EL-6 to Drupal 6.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=642856 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569833
- --Eric
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJMuDMOAAoJEDbiLlqcYamxyhQQAKKdkz2XlR5U+k5ySv2VH4MC gZgVe72Zs66ft/pu2MJUD11UtkOMASKJJ73qfG0Utu3TlOB/PeepY5BZ6UT4FsJN GjuO7rlnI1hoEUJ43puRNb5b1hbVelw0ke3JH5saOM7OLvDnKMcLN7+nL4xwpWMd +x2w6VzOsnGg5ee0MndPcKxIr5psh4D0xMhsFo+ZpaYX5lBKnoAiap1wFswBvwBN Inmc6ivIxq90pG/hqKwpESwtRzwk4VQVpsETPlE072azagE6KrH+psLCkZZFmSVO 6mCQKQQzhpWGyRhUGF7eB8wTuGk9OfWT7Qs3YkvqDen9yGlFGr5bKC+UuhYi1JYb Jt0Qhrx8TpJTMjsbcIAn5VhCdU9H/R/7LHtfaH3VtCZFkXLU2iHGJb7b7xTlX97L c4auUDr4wRgSrCQpUOfeEPY87BNc1RLXu1SJZxCucABsyJc6veL9alcieF98ctL4 83fc8uokpxFAY6n5JgOKVW+LV5jysDO5ESwtAMo4robdoStxJrz9AQ0IrcHbqEG4 85TrSfCiUuOvRZ5VEMF6CJlCJCoSMe7pZ+dslHan5saXx3smqMVgjFdfsgXzLmMB OyvEhvz+fttlN5Zn9AKdbEjxjfk/PgKViPlxQX8N+RaGAp64/w2TjSdS1ie/AC+b nG6pQQviXIvCLzY18u4o =DJFy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ logistics mailing list logistics@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
Personally, I'd keep to the same conventions regarding X as in existing modules.
WRT separate drupal stacks, with two reviews per package, is a necessary evil, at least for EL-5. I'm also wondering if we should put the drupal 5 stack in EL-6 as well as the drupal6 stack. It's not simply the same package with different names, it's got entirely different Requires and file placement to allow it to be installed in parallel, allowing Enterprise users to upgrade at their own pace, which is more in keeping with the mission of RHEL/CentOS/EPEL, as opposed to Fedora, where you can say "Ok, as of F-XX, you're upgrading your Drupal install to Drupal 7. Period."
Good to ask the question, though, Sven, and I totally get where you're coming from.
-J
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 08:43, Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net wrote:
Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 10/15/2010 06:02 AM, Sven Lankes wrote:
Fedora has a bunch of drupal-modules called drupal-modulename with a version of 6.x-1.2 (which is what upstream uses to show that this is for the drupal 6 range).
I was a bit over-cautious when I saw the "X" in the versioning. I spoke to several folks over in #fedora-devel which raised the concern that the X might have problems down the road if they ever changed the X to a number.
Eric suggests in the review [1] that I call the package drupal6-flexinode-1.2 instead of drupal-flexinode-6.x-1.2 - but that name would only work for EPEL as the other drupal modules which are already in Fedora are following the 6.x-1.2 naming scheme.
If this is already being done on other packages (I didn't look) then perhaps keeping the same throughout would be a good thing.
Personally I'm not a fan of maintaining the same package with different names. Just doesn't feel like a good solution to me.
I'm not very experienced wrt. EPEL packaging so I may be missing best practices here but having a completely separate drupal stack for EPEL (with two reviews per package ...) feels very wrong to me.
Not sure how feasible it is wrt. the progress of fedora insight but I'd think that the best way forward would be to leave EL-5 on Drupal 5, update the drupal package in EL-6 to Drupal 6.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=642856 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569833
- --Eric
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJMuDMOAAoJEDbiLlqcYamxyhQQAKKdkz2XlR5U+k5ySv2VH4MC gZgVe72Zs66ft/pu2MJUD11UtkOMASKJJ73qfG0Utu3TlOB/PeepY5BZ6UT4FsJN GjuO7rlnI1hoEUJ43puRNb5b1hbVelw0ke3JH5saOM7OLvDnKMcLN7+nL4xwpWMd +x2w6VzOsnGg5ee0MndPcKxIr5psh4D0xMhsFo+ZpaYX5lBKnoAiap1wFswBvwBN Inmc6ivIxq90pG/hqKwpESwtRzwk4VQVpsETPlE072azagE6KrH+psLCkZZFmSVO 6mCQKQQzhpWGyRhUGF7eB8wTuGk9OfWT7Qs3YkvqDen9yGlFGr5bKC+UuhYi1JYb Jt0Qhrx8TpJTMjsbcIAn5VhCdU9H/R/7LHtfaH3VtCZFkXLU2iHGJb7b7xTlX97L c4auUDr4wRgSrCQpUOfeEPY87BNc1RLXu1SJZxCucABsyJc6veL9alcieF98ctL4 83fc8uokpxFAY6n5JgOKVW+LV5jysDO5ESwtAMo4robdoStxJrz9AQ0IrcHbqEG4 85TrSfCiUuOvRZ5VEMF6CJlCJCoSMe7pZ+dslHan5saXx3smqMVgjFdfsgXzLmMB OyvEhvz+fttlN5Zn9AKdbEjxjfk/PgKViPlxQX8N+RaGAp64/w2TjSdS1ie/AC+b nG6pQQviXIvCLzY18u4o =DJFy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ logistics mailing list logistics@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
Personally, I'd keep to the same conventions regarding X as in existing modules.
I'm good with that. I've updated the review ticket appropriately.
WRT separate drupal stacks, with two reviews per package, is a necessary evil, at least for EL-5. I'm also wondering if we should put the drupal 5 stack in EL-6 as well as the drupal6 stack. It's not simply the same package with different names, it's got entirely different Requires and file placement to allow it to be installed in parallel, allowing Enterprise users to upgrade at their own pace, which is more in keeping with the mission of RHEL/CentOS/EPEL, as opposed to Fedora, where you can say "Ok, as of F-XX, you're upgrading your Drupal install to Drupal 7. Period."
Probably not a bad idea. The package should be changed to drupal6-flexifilter, though.
Good to ask the question, though, Sven, and I totally get where you're coming from.
-J
--Eric
Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 08:43, Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net wrote:
Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 10/15/2010 06:02 AM, Sven Lankes wrote:
Fedora has a bunch of drupal-modules called drupal-modulename with a version of 6.x-1.2 (which is what upstream uses to show that this is for the drupal 6 range).
I was a bit over-cautious when I saw the "X" in the versioning. I spoke to several folks over in #fedora-devel which raised the concern that the X might have problems down the road if they ever changed the X to a number.
Eric suggests in the review [1] that I call the package drupal6-flexinode-1.2 instead of drupal-flexinode-6.x-1.2 - but that name would only work for EPEL as the other drupal modules which are already in Fedora are following the 6.x-1.2 naming scheme.
If this is already being done on other packages (I didn't look) then perhaps keeping the same throughout would be a good thing.
Personally I'm not a fan of maintaining the same package with different names. Just doesn't feel like a good solution to me.
I'm not very experienced wrt. EPEL packaging so I may be missing best practices here but having a completely separate drupal stack for EPEL (with two reviews per package ...) feels very wrong to me.
Not sure how feasible it is wrt. the progress of fedora insight but I'd think that the best way forward would be to leave EL-5 on Drupal 5, update the drupal package in EL-6 to Drupal 6.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=642856 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569833
- --Eric
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJMuDMOAAoJEDbiLlqcYamxyhQQAKKdkz2XlR5U+k5ySv2VH4MC gZgVe72Zs66ft/pu2MJUD11UtkOMASKJJ73qfG0Utu3TlOB/PeepY5BZ6UT4FsJN GjuO7rlnI1hoEUJ43puRNb5b1hbVelw0ke3JH5saOM7OLvDnKMcLN7+nL4xwpWMd +x2w6VzOsnGg5ee0MndPcKxIr5psh4D0xMhsFo+ZpaYX5lBKnoAiap1wFswBvwBN Inmc6ivIxq90pG/hqKwpESwtRzwk4VQVpsETPlE072azagE6KrH+psLCkZZFmSVO 6mCQKQQzhpWGyRhUGF7eB8wTuGk9OfWT7Qs3YkvqDen9yGlFGr5bKC+UuhYi1JYb Jt0Qhrx8TpJTMjsbcIAn5VhCdU9H/R/7LHtfaH3VtCZFkXLU2iHGJb7b7xTlX97L c4auUDr4wRgSrCQpUOfeEPY87BNc1RLXu1SJZxCucABsyJc6veL9alcieF98ctL4 83fc8uokpxFAY6n5JgOKVW+LV5jysDO5ESwtAMo4robdoStxJrz9AQ0IrcHbqEG4 85TrSfCiUuOvRZ5VEMF6CJlCJCoSMe7pZ+dslHan5saXx3smqMVgjFdfsgXzLmMB OyvEhvz+fttlN5Zn9AKdbEjxjfk/PgKViPlxQX8N+RaGAp64/w2TjSdS1ie/AC+b nG6pQQviXIvCLzY18u4o =DJFy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ logistics mailing list logistics@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
Personally, I'd keep to the same conventions regarding X as in existing modules.
I'm good with that. I've updated the review ticket appropriately.
WRT separate drupal stacks, with two reviews per package, is a necessary evil, at least for EL-5. I'm also wondering if we should put the drupal 5 stack in EL-6 as well as the drupal6 stack. It's not simply the same package with different names, it's got entirely different Requires and file placement to allow it to be installed in parallel, allowing Enterprise users to upgrade at their own pace, which is more in keeping with the mission of RHEL/CentOS/EPEL, as opposed to Fedora, where you can say "Ok, as of F-XX, you're upgrading your Drupal install to Drupal 7. Period."
Probably not a bad idea. The package should be changed to drupal6-flexifilter, though.
Or, if you prefer, a second version submitted, so you have one for drupal 5, and one for drupal 6. If you only need it for 6, then just rename, alter paths, Reqs, etc.
Good to ask the question, though, Sven, and I totally get where you're coming from.
-J
--Eric
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 07:43:51AM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 10/15/2010 06:02 AM, Sven Lankes wrote:
Fedora has a bunch of drupal-modules called drupal-modulename with a version of 6.x-1.2 (which is what upstream uses to show that this is for the drupal 6 range).
I was a bit over-cautious when I saw the "X" in the versioning. I spoke to several folks over in #fedora-devel which raised the concern that the X might have problems down the road if they ever changed the X to a number.
Eric suggests in the review [1] that I call the package drupal6-flexinode-1.2 instead of drupal-flexinode-6.x-1.2 - but that name would only work for EPEL as the other drupal modules which are already in Fedora are following the 6.x-1.2 naming scheme.
If this is already being done on other packages (I didn't look) then perhaps keeping the same throughout would be a good thing.
Personally I'm not a fan of maintaining the same package with different names. Just doesn't feel like a good solution to me.
I'm not very experienced wrt. EPEL packaging so I may be missing best practices here but having a completely separate drupal stack for EPEL (with two reviews per package ...) feels very wrong to me.
Not sure how feasible it is wrt. the progress of fedora insight but I'd think that the best way forward would be to leave EL-5 on Drupal 5, update the drupal package in EL-6 to Drupal 6.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=642856 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569833
- --Eric
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJMuDMOAAoJEDbiLlqcYamxyhQQAKKdkz2XlR5U+k5ySv2VH4MC gZgVe72Zs66ft/pu2MJUD11UtkOMASKJJ73qfG0Utu3TlOB/PeepY5BZ6UT4FsJN GjuO7rlnI1hoEUJ43puRNb5b1hbVelw0ke3JH5saOM7OLvDnKMcLN7+nL4xwpWMd +x2w6VzOsnGg5ee0MndPcKxIr5psh4D0xMhsFo+ZpaYX5lBKnoAiap1wFswBvwBN Inmc6ivIxq90pG/hqKwpESwtRzwk4VQVpsETPlE072azagE6KrH+psLCkZZFmSVO 6mCQKQQzhpWGyRhUGF7eB8wTuGk9OfWT7Qs3YkvqDen9yGlFGr5bKC+UuhYi1JYb Jt0Qhrx8TpJTMjsbcIAn5VhCdU9H/R/7LHtfaH3VtCZFkXLU2iHGJb7b7xTlX97L c4auUDr4wRgSrCQpUOfeEPY87BNc1RLXu1SJZxCucABsyJc6veL9alcieF98ctL4 83fc8uokpxFAY6n5JgOKVW+LV5jysDO5ESwtAMo4robdoStxJrz9AQ0IrcHbqEG4 85TrSfCiUuOvRZ5VEMF6CJlCJCoSMe7pZ+dslHan5saXx3smqMVgjFdfsgXzLmMB OyvEhvz+fttlN5Zn9AKdbEjxjfk/PgKViPlxQX8N+RaGAp64/w2TjSdS1ie/AC+b nG6pQQviXIvCLzY18u4o =DJFy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ logistics mailing list logistics@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
Personally, I'd keep to the same conventions regarding X as in existing modules.
WRT separate drupal stacks, with two reviews per package, is a necessary evil, at least for EL-5. I'm also wondering if we should put the drupal 5 stack in EL-6 as well as the drupal6 stack. It's not simply the same package with different names, it's got entirely different Requires and file placement to allow it to be installed in parallel, allowing Enterprise users to upgrade at their own pace, which is more in keeping with the mission of RHEL/CentOS/EPEL, as opposed to Fedora, where you can say "Ok, as of F-XX, you're upgrading your Drupal install to Drupal 7. Period."
Good to ask the question, though, Sven, and I totally get where you're coming from.
Sorry, I just sent a message asking about this in response to another thread on this list, maybe best to let that one die and we'll discuss here. My mail delivery hadn't caught up so I didn't see this thread. :-)
The Drupal upstream is *highly* unlikely to ever drop the 5.x/6.x in their versioning conventions. Making our versioning agree as much as possible with upstream is generally considered the right thing to do for packaging, so using 5.x.1.2 or 6.x.3.0 should be acceptable, because the 'x' alphabetic character is used upstream meaningfully.
I also agree with Jon that Drupal 6 isn't just an upgrade to Drupal 5, there's a whole set of schematic changes that make them quite different products, and applications that live on one or the other framework that make both of them useful.
I would motion that we do this:
For Drupal 5: * Core package: 'drupal' in EL-5 and EL-6 (which we have now) * Modules NVR example: drupal-$MODULE-5.x.1.0-1 Make sure these install in %{_datadir}/drupal
For Drupal 6: * Core package: 'drupal6' in EL-5 and EL-6 * Modules NVR example: drupal6-$MODULE-6.x.1.0-1 Make sure these install in %{_datadir}/drupal6 * Transition Fedora package to be drupal6, since we may want a parallel installable drupal7 package there soon. :-) Since there's no parallel Drupal 5 package in Fedora, this shouldn't be too much of a disturbance in the force.
This would give maximum flexibility for parallel installation, right?
Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 07:43:51AM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 10/15/2010 06:02 AM, Sven Lankes wrote:
Fedora has a bunch of drupal-modules called drupal-modulename with a version of 6.x-1.2 (which is what upstream uses to show that this is for the drupal 6 range).
I was a bit over-cautious when I saw the "X" in the versioning. I spoke to several folks over in #fedora-devel which raised the concern that the X might have problems down the road if they ever changed the X to a number.
Eric suggests in the review [1] that I call the package drupal6-flexinode-1.2 instead of drupal-flexinode-6.x-1.2 - but that name would only work for EPEL as the other drupal modules which are already in Fedora are following the 6.x-1.2 naming scheme.
If this is already being done on other packages (I didn't look) then perhaps keeping the same throughout would be a good thing.
Personally I'm not a fan of maintaining the same package with different names. Just doesn't feel like a good solution to me.
I'm not very experienced wrt. EPEL packaging so I may be missing best practices here but having a completely separate drupal stack for EPEL (with two reviews per package ...) feels very wrong to me.
Not sure how feasible it is wrt. the progress of fedora insight but I'd think that the best way forward would be to leave EL-5 on Drupal 5, update the drupal package in EL-6 to Drupal 6.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=642856 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569833
- --Eric
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJMuDMOAAoJEDbiLlqcYamxyhQQAKKdkz2XlR5U+k5ySv2VH4MC gZgVe72Zs66ft/pu2MJUD11UtkOMASKJJ73qfG0Utu3TlOB/PeepY5BZ6UT4FsJN GjuO7rlnI1hoEUJ43puRNb5b1hbVelw0ke3JH5saOM7OLvDnKMcLN7+nL4xwpWMd +x2w6VzOsnGg5ee0MndPcKxIr5psh4D0xMhsFo+ZpaYX5lBKnoAiap1wFswBvwBN Inmc6ivIxq90pG/hqKwpESwtRzwk4VQVpsETPlE072azagE6KrH+psLCkZZFmSVO 6mCQKQQzhpWGyRhUGF7eB8wTuGk9OfWT7Qs3YkvqDen9yGlFGr5bKC+UuhYi1JYb Jt0Qhrx8TpJTMjsbcIAn5VhCdU9H/R/7LHtfaH3VtCZFkXLU2iHGJb7b7xTlX97L c4auUDr4wRgSrCQpUOfeEPY87BNc1RLXu1SJZxCucABsyJc6veL9alcieF98ctL4 83fc8uokpxFAY6n5JgOKVW+LV5jysDO5ESwtAMo4robdoStxJrz9AQ0IrcHbqEG4 85TrSfCiUuOvRZ5VEMF6CJlCJCoSMe7pZ+dslHan5saXx3smqMVgjFdfsgXzLmMB OyvEhvz+fttlN5Zn9AKdbEjxjfk/PgKViPlxQX8N+RaGAp64/w2TjSdS1ie/AC+b nG6pQQviXIvCLzY18u4o =DJFy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ logistics mailing list logistics@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
Personally, I'd keep to the same conventions regarding X as in existing modules.
WRT separate drupal stacks, with two reviews per package, is a necessary evil, at least for EL-5. I'm also wondering if we should put the drupal 5 stack in EL-6 as well as the drupal6 stack. It's not simply the same package with different names, it's got entirely different Requires and file placement to allow it to be installed in parallel, allowing Enterprise users to upgrade at their own pace, which is more in keeping with the mission of RHEL/CentOS/EPEL, as opposed to Fedora, where you can say "Ok, as of F-XX, you're upgrading your Drupal install to Drupal 7. Period."
Good to ask the question, though, Sven, and I totally get where you're coming from.
Sorry, I just sent a message asking about this in response to another thread on this list, maybe best to let that one die and we'll discuss here. My mail delivery hadn't caught up so I didn't see this thread. :-)
The Drupal upstream is *highly* unlikely to ever drop the 5.x/6.x in their versioning conventions. Making our versioning agree as much as possible with upstream is generally considered the right thing to do for packaging, so using 5.x.1.2 or 6.x.3.0 should be acceptable, because the 'x' alphabetic character is used upstream meaningfully.
I also agree with Jon that Drupal 6 isn't just an upgrade to Drupal 5, there's a whole set of schematic changes that make them quite different products, and applications that live on one or the other framework that make both of them useful.
I would motion that we do this:
For Drupal 5:
- Core package: 'drupal' in EL-5 and EL-6 (which we have now)
- Modules NVR example: drupal-$MODULE-5.x.1.0-1 Make sure these install in %{_datadir}/drupal
For Drupal 6:
- Core package: 'drupal6' in EL-5 and EL-6
- Modules NVR example: drupal6-$MODULE-6.x.1.0-1 Make sure these install in %{_datadir}/drupal6
- Transition Fedora package to be drupal6, since we may want a parallel installable drupal7 package there soon. :-) Since there's no parallel Drupal 5 package in Fedora, this shouldn't be too much of a disturbance in the force.
This would give maximum flexibility for parallel installation, right?
I like all of this. I can understand aesthetically why we should rename drupal to drupal6 in preparation for drupal7, but my laziness says we could leave it alone and just do drupal7 when it's ready.
Even though the rename would be needed for the base package and all the modules, and would be a bit of a pain, but it would make the maintenance and cross porting of modules between Fedora and EPEL simpler.
Maybe we do this only in rawhide?
-J
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 08:42:06AM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
I like all of this. I can understand aesthetically why we should rename drupal to drupal6 in preparation for drupal7, but my laziness says we could leave it alone and just do drupal7 when it's ready. Even though the rename would be needed for the base package and all the modules, and would be a bit of a pain, but it would make the maintenance and cross porting of modules between Fedora and EPEL simpler.
I like this too (but I would say we do it now rather than later).
But I wonder if we should asked fesco about naming and multiple concurrent versions as doing so is generally frowned upon in Fedora-land.
Maybe we do this only in rawhide?
Yeah - touching F12-F14 now sounds like a bad idea. If we get the rename done soonish, I would hold back the new modules I've packaged and only put them in F15 and Rawhide after the rename is done.
I'm happy to do the rename reviews.
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 09:28:46AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 07:43:51AM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 10/15/2010 06:02 AM, Sven Lankes wrote:
Fedora has a bunch of drupal-modules called drupal-modulename with a version of 6.x-1.2 (which is what upstream uses to show that this is for the drupal 6 range).
I was a bit over-cautious when I saw the "X" in the versioning. I spoke to several folks over in #fedora-devel which raised the concern that the X might have problems down the road if they ever changed the X to a number.
Eric suggests in the review [1] that I call the package drupal6-flexinode-1.2 instead of drupal-flexinode-6.x-1.2 - but that name would only work for EPEL as the other drupal modules which are already in Fedora are following the 6.x-1.2 naming scheme.
If this is already being done on other packages (I didn't look) then perhaps keeping the same throughout would be a good thing.
Personally I'm not a fan of maintaining the same package with different names. Just doesn't feel like a good solution to me.
I'm not very experienced wrt. EPEL packaging so I may be missing best practices here but having a completely separate drupal stack for EPEL (with two reviews per package ...) feels very wrong to me.
Not sure how feasible it is wrt. the progress of fedora insight but I'd think that the best way forward would be to leave EL-5 on Drupal 5, update the drupal package in EL-6 to Drupal 6.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=642856 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569833
- --Eric
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJMuDMOAAoJEDbiLlqcYamxyhQQAKKdkz2XlR5U+k5ySv2VH4MC gZgVe72Zs66ft/pu2MJUD11UtkOMASKJJ73qfG0Utu3TlOB/PeepY5BZ6UT4FsJN GjuO7rlnI1hoEUJ43puRNb5b1hbVelw0ke3JH5saOM7OLvDnKMcLN7+nL4xwpWMd +x2w6VzOsnGg5ee0MndPcKxIr5psh4D0xMhsFo+ZpaYX5lBKnoAiap1wFswBvwBN Inmc6ivIxq90pG/hqKwpESwtRzwk4VQVpsETPlE072azagE6KrH+psLCkZZFmSVO 6mCQKQQzhpWGyRhUGF7eB8wTuGk9OfWT7Qs3YkvqDen9yGlFGr5bKC+UuhYi1JYb Jt0Qhrx8TpJTMjsbcIAn5VhCdU9H/R/7LHtfaH3VtCZFkXLU2iHGJb7b7xTlX97L c4auUDr4wRgSrCQpUOfeEPY87BNc1RLXu1SJZxCucABsyJc6veL9alcieF98ctL4 83fc8uokpxFAY6n5JgOKVW+LV5jysDO5ESwtAMo4robdoStxJrz9AQ0IrcHbqEG4 85TrSfCiUuOvRZ5VEMF6CJlCJCoSMe7pZ+dslHan5saXx3smqMVgjFdfsgXzLmMB OyvEhvz+fttlN5Zn9AKdbEjxjfk/PgKViPlxQX8N+RaGAp64/w2TjSdS1ie/AC+b nG6pQQviXIvCLzY18u4o =DJFy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ logistics mailing list logistics@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
Personally, I'd keep to the same conventions regarding X as in existing modules.
WRT separate drupal stacks, with two reviews per package, is a necessary evil, at least for EL-5. I'm also wondering if we should put the drupal 5 stack in EL-6 as well as the drupal6 stack. It's not simply the same package with different names, it's got entirely different Requires and file placement to allow it to be installed in parallel, allowing Enterprise users to upgrade at their own pace, which is more in keeping with the mission of RHEL/CentOS/EPEL, as opposed to Fedora, where you can say "Ok, as of F-XX, you're upgrading your Drupal install to Drupal 7. Period."
Good to ask the question, though, Sven, and I totally get where you're coming from.
Sorry, I just sent a message asking about this in response to another thread on this list, maybe best to let that one die and we'll discuss here. My mail delivery hadn't caught up so I didn't see this thread. :-)
The Drupal upstream is *highly* unlikely to ever drop the 5.x/6.x in their versioning conventions. Making our versioning agree as much as possible with upstream is generally considered the right thing to do for packaging, so using 5.x.1.2 or 6.x.3.0 should be acceptable, because the 'x' alphabetic character is used upstream meaningfully.
This versioning is contrary to the packaging guidelines. If you think that it's a good idea, then submit a draft to the FPC to change the guideline.
We generally do not trust upstreams to be sane as that's something that is subject to change when upstream developers change.
Just from reading this thread and not looking at the code, it also sounds like the plugins are written for a particular major version of drupal ie: drupal-foo-6.x.1.0 will only run on drupal6, not on drupal 5 or drupal 7. If that's the case, the drupal version information belongs in the name field whether or not you get FPC to change whether it's allowed in the version field as well. Otherwise, you have two issues:
1) End user installs drupal-foo-6.x.1.0 because they want to enable the foo functionality in their drupal-5.x install. They are confused why it doesn't work.
2) You end up with name clashes where you wnat to package both drupal-foo for drupal-6 and drupal-5. You can't have both packages occupy the same name.
All in all, I agree with Eric's original assessment of "drupal6-flexifilter and the version to 1.2" as a very sane choice.
I also agree with Jon that Drupal 6 isn't just an upgrade to Drupal 5, there's a whole set of schematic changes that make them quite different products, and applications that live on one or the other framework that make both of them useful.
I would motion that we do this:
For Drupal 5:
- Core package: 'drupal' in EL-5 and EL-6 (which we have now)
- Modules NVR example: drupal-$MODULE-5.x.1.0-1 Make sure these install in %{_datadir}/drupal
For Drupal 6:
- Core package: 'drupal6' in EL-5 and EL-6
- Modules NVR example: drupal6-$MODULE-6.x.1.0-1 Make sure these install in %{_datadir}/drupal6
- Transition Fedora package to be drupal6, since we may want a parallel installable drupal7 package there soon. :-) Since there's no parallel Drupal 5 package in Fedora, this shouldn't be too much of a disturbance in the force.
This would give maximum flexibility for parallel installation, right?
Traditionally in Fedora the latest package in a series has the package name unadorned with the version number and backwards compat packages have the version number added to the name. One advantage of that is that you don't need a nw review whenever you want to update to a new version.
However, this is not a requirement -- if you feel that having each major version contain the version number, that's not going to contravene any best practices. However, note that this does mean that you will need to produce, review, and maintain new packages for each parallel stack. ie: When you rename to drupal6 you're going to need to rename all of the drupal-MODULEs to drupal6-MODULEs and ndergo a rereview at that point. When drupal7 comes out, you'll need to separately package, review and maintain the drupal7 package and all ofthe modules built for drupal7.
be especially careful when evaluating the time commitment of separate stacks wrt epel. Fedora is only an 13 month commitment -- if you find it's too much to do, you can orphan in rawhide and 13 months later, not have to maintain it. For EPEL, you have a vastly longer time frame in which the package must be maintained.
-Toshio
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 09:15:50AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Just from reading this thread and not looking at the code, it also sounds like the plugins are written for a particular major version of drupal ie: drupal-foo-6.x.1.0 will only run on drupal6, not on drupal 5 or drupal 7. If that's the case, the drupal version information belongs in the name field whether or not you get FPC to change whether it's allowed in the version field as well. Otherwise, you have two issues:
- End user installs drupal-foo-6.x.1.0 because they want to enable the foo
functionality in their drupal-5.x install. They are confused why it doesn't work. 2) You end up with name clashes where you wnat to package both drupal-foo for drupal-6 and drupal-5. You can't have both packages occupy the same name.
Right - this versioning scheme doesn't work with multiple parallel drupal versions. So _if_ we're going drupal6, drupal7 in fedora the modules need the major version in the name.
All in all, I agree with Eric's original assessment of "drupal6-flexifilter and the version to 1.2" as a very sane choice.
Not if the main package is called "drupal" (IMO). Because then we'd be again at 'needing new review on update' which you're warning about below.
So for the case of the current fedora drupal setup (with one package called drupal and that shipping the current version) "drupal-cck-1.2" would be the right thing to name that package (which means that we'd need to epoch the old version out for the existing modules).
Traditionally in Fedora the latest package in a series has the package name unadorned with the version number and backwards compat packages have the version number added to the name. One advantage of that is that you don't need a nw review whenever you want to update to a new version.
[rereviews and support periods]
I'm starting to think that it's probably best to leave things as they are. Fedora has "drupal", EL gets drupal6.
If leaving drupal6 out of EL-5 completely is an option I'd be happy to create a 'backport' repository with the drupal 6 packages on repos.fedorapeople.org. If fedora insight would need to be deployed on RHEL5 then we could put the backports into the infrastructure repo.
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 06:44:53PM +0200, Sven Lankes wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 09:15:50AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
All in all, I agree with Eric's original assessment of "drupal6-flexifilter and the version to 1.2" as a very sane choice.
Not if the main package is called "drupal" (IMO). Because then we'd be again at 'needing new review on update' which you're warning about below.
So for the case of the current fedora drupal setup (with one package called drupal and that shipping the current version) "drupal-cck-1.2" would be the right thing to name that package (which means that we'd need to epoch the old version out for the existing modules).
Correct.
Traditionally in Fedora the latest package in a series has the package name unadorned with the version number and backwards compat packages have the version number added to the name. One advantage of that is that you don't need a nw review whenever you want to update to a new version.
[rereviews and support periods]
I'm starting to think that it's probably best to leave things as they are. Fedora has "drupal", EL gets drupal6.
If leaving drupal6 out of EL-5 completely is an option I'd be happy to create a 'backport' repository with the drupal 6 packages on repos.fedorapeople.org. If fedora insight would need to be deployed on RHEL5 then we could put the backports into the infrastructure repo.
This is also correct. The question of pushing drupal6 packages to EL-5 is probably a matter of whether there's a demand for druapl6 running on RHEL5 and whether anyone wants to take the time to package it.
-Toshio
2010/10/15 Toshio Kuratomi a.badger@gmail.com:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 06:44:53PM +0200, Sven Lankes wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 09:15:50AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
All in all, I agree with Eric's original assessment of "drupal6-flexifilter and the version to 1.2" as a very sane choice.
Not if the main package is called "drupal" (IMO). Because then we'd be again at 'needing new review on update' which you're warning about below.
So for the case of the current fedora drupal setup (with one package called drupal and that shipping the current version) "drupal-cck-1.2" would be the right thing to name that package (which means that we'd need to epoch the old version out for the existing modules).
Correct.
Traditionally in Fedora the latest package in a series has the package name unadorned with the version number and backwards compat packages have the version number added to the name. One advantage of that is that you don't need a nw review whenever you want to update to a new version.
[rereviews and support periods]
I'm starting to think that it's probably best to leave things as they are. Fedora has "drupal", EL gets drupal6.
If leaving drupal6 out of EL-5 completely is an option I'd be happy to create a 'backport' repository with the drupal 6 packages on repos.fedorapeople.org. If fedora insight would need to be deployed on RHEL5 then we could put the backports into the infrastructure repo.
This is also correct. The question of pushing drupal6 packages to EL-5 is probably a matter of whether there's a demand for druapl6 running on RHEL5 and whether anyone wants to take the time to package it.
Fedora Infrastructure has a need for drupal6. The new insight project will be using drupal6 and the app servers are currently (and will be for a while) running EL5.
-Toshio
logistics mailing list logistics@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 02:35:33PM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
2010/10/15 Toshio Kuratomi a.badger@gmail.com:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 06:44:53PM +0200, Sven Lankes wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 09:15:50AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
All in all, I agree with Eric's original assessment of "drupal6-flexifilter and the version to 1.2" as a very sane choice.
Not if the main package is called "drupal" (IMO). Because then we'd be again at 'needing new review on update' which you're warning about below.
So for the case of the current fedora drupal setup (with one package called drupal and that shipping the current version) "drupal-cck-1.2" would be the right thing to name that package (which means that we'd need to epoch the old version out for the existing modules).
Correct.
Traditionally in Fedora the latest package in a series has the package name unadorned with the version number and backwards compat packages have the version number added to the name. One advantage of that is that you don't need a nw review whenever you want to update to a new version.
[rereviews and support periods]
I'm starting to think that it's probably best to leave things as they are. Fedora has "drupal", EL gets drupal6.
If leaving drupal6 out of EL-5 completely is an option I'd be happy to create a 'backport' repository with the drupal 6 packages on repos.fedorapeople.org. If fedora insight would need to be deployed on RHEL5 then we could put the backports into the infrastructure repo.
This is also correct. The question of pushing drupal6 packages to EL-5 is probably a matter of whether there's a demand for druapl6 running on RHEL5 and whether anyone wants to take the time to package it.
Fedora Infrastructure has a need for drupal6. The new insight project will be using drupal6 and the app servers are currently (and will be for a while) running EL5.
Yup, we do want Drupal 6 available on EL-5 for sure.
* * *
About the version naming, sorry for the kerfuffle. I see no problem with having module NVR like:
drupal6-flexifilter-1.2-1
As a bunch of us discussed in another thread, different major releases of Drupal (for instance) are extremely different frameworks, and it's not at all unusual for people to want to run multiples. Given these are very high level frameworks (as opposed to running different versions of e.g. Python), we should be able to support both in Fedora. This is particularly true since we want to continue to make Fedora hospitable for people doing development work for production systems running these different Drupal frameworks.
I'd think that whether you're using Fedora or an enterprise system using EPEL-5/EPEL-6 add-ons, having 'yum install drupal6' do the same thing on both platforms would be less confusing. I think that Jon Ciesla was looking at doing this changeover in Rawhide/F-15 so that in the future we'll have 'drupal6' and 'drupal7' packages there.
Since Drupal 5 is "going away" shortly (in the sense that will stop receiving maintenance) once Drupal 7 is introduced, it should be easy to transition EL-5 and EL-6 to have 'drupal7' namespaced packages. If I understand Jon's plans right, starting with Fedora 15 'drupal' would become 'drupal6', and 'drupal7' would be available there too, not long after that version is officially released. In all cases we could use 'drupalN' namespaced core and module packages, and keep the version numbers adherent to the Packaging Guidelines.
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 08:17:04AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
Fedora Infrastructure has a need for drupal6. The new insight project will be using drupal6 and the app servers are currently (and will be for a while) running EL5.
Yup, we do want Drupal 6 available on EL-5 for sure.
As far as I understand it is not mandatory for packages that are to be used in the fedora infrastructure to be available in EPEL - it would be sufficient to have them in the infrastructure repo.
As I said - I would be happy to keep a repos.fedorapeople.org repository updated with a working drupal6 for el5 - the srpms could then be used as the base of the infrastructure packages.
About the version naming, sorry for the kerfuffle. I see no problem with having module NVR like: drupal6-flexifilter-1.2-1 As a bunch of us discussed in another thread, different major releases of Drupal (for instance) are extremely different frameworks, and it's not at all unusual for people to want to run multiples. Given these are very high level frameworks (as opposed to running different versions of e.g. Python), we should be able to support both in Fedora. This is particularly true since we want to continue to make Fedora hospitable for people doing development work for production systems running these different Drupal frameworks. I'd think that whether you're using Fedora or an enterprise system using EPEL-5/EPEL-6 add-ons, having 'yum install drupal6' do the same thing on both platforms would be less confusing. I think that Jon Ciesla was looking at doing this changeover in Rawhide/F-15 so that in the future we'll have 'drupal6' and 'drupal7' packages there.
As Toshio noted this would require a re-review of all packages for each new drupal release (core and all modules). If I understand correctly drupal is planning more frequent releases in the future.
I'm not totally opposed to going that route (and after all it's Jons call as the drupal maintainer) but we should at least be aware that we're creating quite a bit of extra work for the package maintainers and also would also be diverging from the way compat packages are usually handled in fedora.
Sven Lankes wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 08:17:04AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
Fedora Infrastructure has a need for drupal6. The new insight project will be using drupal6 and the app servers are currently (and will be for a while) running EL5.
Yup, we do want Drupal 6 available on EL-5 for sure.
As far as I understand it is not mandatory for packages that are to be used in the fedora infrastructure to be available in EPEL - it would be sufficient to have them in the infrastructure repo.
As I said - I would be happy to keep a repos.fedorapeople.org repository updated with a working drupal6 for el5 - the srpms could then be used as the base of the infrastructure packages.
About the version naming, sorry for the kerfuffle. I see no problem with having module NVR like: drupal6-flexifilter-1.2-1 As a bunch of us discussed in another thread, different major releases of Drupal (for instance) are extremely different frameworks, and it's not at all unusual for people to want to run multiples. Given these are very high level frameworks (as opposed to running different versions of e.g. Python), we should be able to support both in Fedora. This is particularly true since we want to continue to make Fedora hospitable for people doing development work for production systems running these different Drupal frameworks. I'd think that whether you're using Fedora or an enterprise system using EPEL-5/EPEL-6 add-ons, having 'yum install drupal6' do the same thing on both platforms would be less confusing. I think that Jon Ciesla was looking at doing this changeover in Rawhide/F-15 so that in the future we'll have 'drupal6' and 'drupal7' packages there.
As Toshio noted this would require a re-review of all packages for each new drupal release (core and all modules). If I understand correctly drupal is planning more frequent releases in the future.
I'm not totally opposed to going that route (and after all it's Jons call as the drupal maintainer) but we should at least be aware that we're creating quite a bit of extra work for the package maintainers and also would also be diverging from the way compat packages are usually handled in fedora.
Drupal6 is in EL-5. It needs to be. That ship has sailed, no need for a repos.fp.o version. It's so new that it's basically another application. I'm planning doing the same with gallery2 and gallery3, once I wake up from the bundled libs nightmare of gallery3.
And it's now basically decided that I need to take the X out of the EVR for all modules, and transtion drupal* to drupal6* in rawhide, and to drupal5* in EL-5? If this is correct, I'll get on it this week.
-J
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 08:47:55AM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
And it's now basically decided that I need to take the X out of the EVR for all modules, and transtion drupal* to drupal6* in rawhide, and to drupal5* in EL-5? If this is correct, I'll get on it this week.
Unless we want to suggest a change to the FPC which I wouldn't know how to justify.
I'll change my pending review request to use drupal6* and only request branches for F15 and EL.
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 09:58, Sven Lankes sven@lank.es wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 08:47:55AM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
And it's now basically decided that I need to take the X out of the EVR for all modules, and transtion drupal* to drupal6* in rawhide, and to drupal5* in EL-5? If this is correct, I'll get on it this week.
Unless we want to suggest a change to the FPC which I wouldn't know how to justify.
I'll change my pending review request to use drupal6* and only request branches for F15 and EL.
-- sven === jabber/xmpp: sven@lankes.net
In my opinion this needs to happen. Let's put together a request for the FPC or whoever to evaluate. This shouldn't be a big deal and we are not going to get anywhere just going back and forth here.
Clearly there is a need here and we can make this happen sooner.
--Eric
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:47:49AM -0400, Eric Sparks Christensen wrote:
And it's now basically decided that I need to take the X out of the EVR for all modules, and transtion drupal* to drupal6* in rawhide, and to drupal5* in EL-5? If this is correct, I'll get on it this week.
Unless we want to suggest a change to the FPC which I wouldn't know how to justify.
I'll change my pending review request to use drupal6* and only request branches for F15 and EL.
In my opinion this needs to happen. Let's put together a request for the FPC or whoever to evaluate. This shouldn't be a big deal and we are not going to get anywhere just going back and forth here. Clearly there is a need here and we can make this happen sooner.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I feel that we have now agreed on:
1. rename drupal to drupal6 in F15+
2. EL5 and EL6 get drupal6 (no change - this is already in testing)
3. all (5 or so) existing drupal modules will be renamed drupal6-* for EL5/6 and F15+
4. I'll be changing the three open review requests to be for drupal6-* instead of drupal-*
This will require a few rename-reviews (for the existing modules) but it'll make sure that we have consistent naming between Fedora and EPEL going forward.
Sven Lankes wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:47:49AM -0400, Eric Sparks Christensen wrote:
And it's now basically decided that I need to take the X out of the EVR for all modules, and transtion drupal* to drupal6* in rawhide, and to drupal5* in EL-5? If this is correct, I'll get on it this week.
Unless we want to suggest a change to the FPC which I wouldn't know how to justify.
I'll change my pending review request to use drupal6* and only request branches for F15 and EL.
In my opinion this needs to happen. Let's put together a request for the FPC or whoever to evaluate. This shouldn't be a big deal and we are not going to get anywhere just going back and forth here. Clearly there is a need here and we can make this happen sooner.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I feel that we have now agreed on:
rename drupal to drupal6 in F15+
EL5 and EL6 get drupal6 (no change - this is already in testing)
all (5 or so) existing drupal modules will be renamed drupal6-* for EL5/6 and F15+
I'll be changing the three open review requests to be for drupal6-* instead of drupal-*
This will require a few rename-reviews (for the existing modules) but it'll make sure that we have consistent naming between Fedora and EPEL going forward.
That's what I see, too. No need for FPC, I'll draw up the rename reviews soon.
-J
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:01, Sven Lankes sven@lank.es wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:47:49AM -0400, Eric Sparks Christensen wrote:
And it's now basically decided that I need to take the X out of the EVR for all modules, and transtion drupal* to drupal6* in rawhide, and to drupal5* in EL-5? If this is correct, I'll get on it this week.
Unless we want to suggest a change to the FPC which I wouldn't know how to justify.
I'll change my pending review request to use drupal6* and only request branches for F15 and EL.
In my opinion this needs to happen. Let's put together a request for the FPC or whoever to evaluate. This shouldn't be a big deal and we are not going to get anywhere just going back and forth here. Clearly there is a need here and we can make this happen sooner.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I feel that we have now agreed on:
1. rename drupal to drupal6 in F15+
Why are we waiting for F15? Why can't this be done for F14 and previous? The update would essentially be a package replacement without any configuration change; a trivial change for sysadmins.
--Eric
Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:01, Sven Lankes sven@lank.es wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:47:49AM -0400, Eric Sparks Christensen wrote:
And it's now basically decided that I need to take the X out of the EVR for all modules, and transtion drupal* to drupal6* in rawhide, and to drupal5* in EL-5? If this is correct, I'll get on it this week.
Unless we want to suggest a change to the FPC which I wouldn't know how to justify.
I'll change my pending review request to use drupal6* and only request branches for F15 and EL.
In my opinion this needs to happen. Let's put together a request for the FPC or whoever to evaluate. This shouldn't be a big deal and we are not going to get anywhere just going back and forth here. Clearly there is a need here and we can make this happen sooner.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I feel that we have now agreed on:
- rename drupal to drupal6 in F15+
Why are we waiting for F15? Why can't this be done for F14 and previous? The update would essentially be a package replacement without any configuration change; a trivial change for sysadmins.
--Eric _______________________________________________ logistics mailing list logistics@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
It can, but what would the benefit be to those sysadmins?
-J
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 13:09, Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net wrote:
Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:01, Sven Lankes sven@lank.es wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:47:49AM -0400, Eric Sparks Christensen wrote:
And it's now basically decided that I need to take the X out of the EVR for all modules, and transtion drupal* to drupal6* in rawhide, and to drupal5* in EL-5? If this is correct, I'll get on it this week.
Unless we want to suggest a change to the FPC which I wouldn't know how to justify.
I'll change my pending review request to use drupal6* and only request branches for F15 and EL.
In my opinion this needs to happen. Let's put together a request for the FPC or whoever to evaluate. This shouldn't be a big deal and we are not going to get anywhere just going back and forth here. Clearly there is a need here and we can make this happen sooner.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I feel that we have now agreed on:
1. rename drupal to drupal6 in F15+
Why are we waiting for F15? Why can't this be done for F14 and previous? The update would essentially be a package replacement without any configuration change; a trivial change for sysadmins.
--Eric _______________________________________________ logistics mailing list logistics@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
It can, but what would the benefit be to those sysadmins?
-J
I just thought it would be easier to maintain the package and it would allow those using versions of Fedora <F15 to have access to the modules.
--Eric
Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 13:09, Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net wrote:
Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:01, Sven Lankes sven@lank.es wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:47:49AM -0400, Eric Sparks Christensen wrote:
> And it's now basically decided that I need to take the X out of the > EVR for all modules, and transtion drupal* to drupal6* in rawhide, and > to drupal5* in EL-5? If this is correct, I'll get on it this week. > > Unless we want to suggest a change to the FPC which I wouldn't know how to justify.
I'll change my pending review request to use drupal6* and only request branches for F15 and EL.
In my opinion this needs to happen. Let's put together a request for the FPC or whoever to evaluate. This shouldn't be a big deal and we are not going to get anywhere just going back and forth here. Clearly there is a need here and we can make this happen sooner.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I feel that we have now agreed on:
- rename drupal to drupal6 in F15+
Why are we waiting for F15? Why can't this be done for F14 and previous? The update would essentially be a package replacement without any configuration change; a trivial change for sysadmins.
--Eric _______________________________________________ logistics mailing list logistics@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
It can, but what would the benefit be to those sysadmins?
-J
I just thought it would be easier to maintain the package and it would allow those using versions of Fedora <F15 to have access to the modules.
--Eric _______________________________________________ logistics mailing list logistics@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
How so? All currently supported Fedora releases have drupal==6. If we rename everything to drupal6 in rawhide, this won't change. It's not like we're creating a drupal5. Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean, exactly.
-J
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 13:28, Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net wrote:
Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 13:09, Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net wrote:
Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:01, Sven Lankes sven@lank.es wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:47:49AM -0400, Eric Sparks Christensen wrote:
>> And it's now basically decided that I need to take the X out of the >> EVR for all modules, and transtion drupal* to drupal6* in rawhide, and >> to drupal5* in EL-5? If this is correct, I'll get on it this week. >> >> > Unless we want to suggest a change to the FPC which I wouldn't know how > to justify. > > I'll change my pending review request to use drupal6* and only request > branches for F15 and EL. > > In my opinion this needs to happen. Let's put together a request for the FPC or whoever to evaluate. This shouldn't be a big deal and we are not going to get anywhere just going back and forth here. Clearly there is a need here and we can make this happen sooner.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I feel that we have now agreed on:
1. rename drupal to drupal6 in F15+
Why are we waiting for F15? Why can't this be done for F14 and previous? The update would essentially be a package replacement without any configuration change; a trivial change for sysadmins.
--Eric _______________________________________________ logistics mailing list logistics@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
It can, but what would the benefit be to those sysadmins?
-J
I just thought it would be easier to maintain the package and it would allow those using versions of Fedora <F15 to have access to the modules.
--Eric _______________________________________________ logistics mailing list logistics@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
How so? All currently supported Fedora releases have drupal==6. If we rename everything to drupal6 in rawhide, this won't change. It's not like we're creating a drupal5. Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean, exactly.
-J
If the drupal6 modules require drupal6 then those modules won't be available to those running drupal 6.x because it is a different package name. So you'll either have to make those modules require either drupal6 or drupal 6.x or you'll have to make a drupal6 module and a drupal 6.x module.
--Eric
Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 13:28, Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net wrote:
Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 13:09, Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net wrote:
Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:01, Sven Lankes sven@lank.es wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:47:49AM -0400, Eric Sparks Christensen wrote:
>>> And it's now basically decided that I need to take the X out of the >>> EVR for all modules, and transtion drupal* to drupal6* in rawhide, and >>> to drupal5* in EL-5? If this is correct, I'll get on it this week. >>> >>> >>> >> Unless we want to suggest a change to the FPC which I wouldn't know how >> to justify. >> >> I'll change my pending review request to use drupal6* and only request >> branches for F15 and EL. >> >> >> > In my opinion this needs to happen. Let's put together a request for > the FPC or whoever to evaluate. This shouldn't be a big deal and we > are not going to get anywhere just going back and forth here. > Clearly there is a need here and we can make this happen sooner. > > > Correct me if I'm wrong but I feel that we have now agreed on:
- rename drupal to drupal6 in F15+
Why are we waiting for F15? Why can't this be done for F14 and previous? The update would essentially be a package replacement without any configuration change; a trivial change for sysadmins.
--Eric _______________________________________________ logistics mailing list logistics@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
It can, but what would the benefit be to those sysadmins?
-J
I just thought it would be easier to maintain the package and it would allow those using versions of Fedora <F15 to have access to the modules.
--Eric _______________________________________________ logistics mailing list logistics@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
How so? All currently supported Fedora releases have drupal==6. If we rename everything to drupal6 in rawhide, this won't change. It's not like we're creating a drupal5. Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean, exactly.
-J
If the drupal6 modules require drupal6 then those modules won't be available to those running drupal 6.x because it is a different package name. So you'll either have to make those modules require either drupal6 or drupal 6.x or you'll have to make a drupal6 module and a drupal 6.x module.
--Eric _______________________________________________ logistics mailing list logistics@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
Oh, sorry, yes, that's part of the plan. The 6.x issue is simply a problem in the EVR, which is separate, though related to, the drupal/drupal6 issue.
-J
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 05:01:42PM +0200, Sven Lankes wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:47:49AM -0400, Eric Sparks Christensen wrote:
And it's now basically decided that I need to take the X out of the EVR for all modules, and transtion drupal* to drupal6* in rawhide, and to drupal5* in EL-5? If this is correct, I'll get on it this week.
Unless we want to suggest a change to the FPC which I wouldn't know how to justify.
I'll change my pending review request to use drupal6* and only request branches for F15 and EL.
In my opinion this needs to happen. Let's put together a request for the FPC or whoever to evaluate. This shouldn't be a big deal and we are not going to get anywhere just going back and forth here. Clearly there is a need here and we can make this happen sooner.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I feel that we have now agreed on:
rename drupal to drupal6 in F15+
EL5 and EL6 get drupal6 (no change - this is already in testing)
all (5 or so) existing drupal modules will be renamed drupal6-* for EL5/6 and F15+
I presume this means that these will include the 6.x tarballs as a change?
- I'll be changing the three open review requests to be for drupal6-* instead of drupal-*
Ditto?
This will require a few rename-reviews (for the existing modules) but it'll make sure that we have consistent naming between Fedora and EPEL going forward.
Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 05:01:42PM +0200, Sven Lankes wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:47:49AM -0400, Eric Sparks Christensen wrote:
And it's now basically decided that I need to take the X out of the EVR for all modules, and transtion drupal* to drupal6* in rawhide, and to drupal5* in EL-5? If this is correct, I'll get on it this week.
Unless we want to suggest a change to the FPC which I wouldn't know how to justify.
I'll change my pending review request to use drupal6* and only request branches for F15 and EL.
In my opinion this needs to happen. Let's put together a request for the FPC or whoever to evaluate. This shouldn't be a big deal and we are not going to get anywhere just going back and forth here. Clearly there is a need here and we can make this happen sooner.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I feel that we have now agreed on:
rename drupal to drupal6 in F15+
EL5 and EL6 get drupal6 (no change - this is already in testing)
Just getting to submitting reviews for these. I wanted to sanity-check something, please tell me if this doesn't work.
We want to rename drupal to drupal6 in F15+. We have drupal6 already, and it already has a devel branch due to the dist-git no-devel-branch thingy. Should I not just dead.package drupal in master, un-dead-package drupal6 in master, and have it there, and only there, obsolete drupal == 6?
- all (5 or so) existing drupal modules will be renamed drupal6-* for EL5/6 and F15+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646606 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646608 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646610 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646611 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646612 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646614
I presume this means that these will include the 6.x tarballs as a change?
- I'll be changing the three open review requests to be for drupal6-* instead of drupal-*
Ditto?
This will require a few rename-reviews (for the existing modules) but it'll make sure that we have consistent naming between Fedora and EPEL going forward.
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 01:40:11PM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 05:01:42PM +0200, Sven Lankes wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:47:49AM -0400, Eric Sparks Christensen wrote:
And it's now basically decided that I need to take the X out of the EVR for all modules, and transtion drupal* to drupal6* in rawhide, and to drupal5* in EL-5? If this is correct, I'll get on it this week.
Unless we want to suggest a change to the FPC which I wouldn't know how to justify.
I'll change my pending review request to use drupal6* and only request branches for F15 and EL.
In my opinion this needs to happen. Let's put together a request for the FPC or whoever to evaluate. This shouldn't be a big deal and we are not going to get anywhere just going back and forth here. Clearly there is a need here and we can make this happen sooner.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I feel that we have now agreed on:
rename drupal to drupal6 in F15+
EL5 and EL6 get drupal6 (no change - this is already in testing)
Just getting to submitting reviews for these. I wanted to sanity-check something, please tell me if this doesn't work.
We want to rename drupal to drupal6 in F15+. We have drupal6 already, and it already has a devel branch due to the dist-git no-devel-branch thingy. Should I not just dead.package drupal in master, un-dead-package drupal6 in master, and have it there, and only there, obsolete drupal == 6?
That works -- since it's a different package from what's currently in drupal6 (more like the current drupal), you might want to put it up for review anyhow... I think that is keeping with the spirit of FESCo's "you need a rereview on renaming" policy even if taking the shortcut obeys the letter of the policy.
-Toshio
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 01:40:11PM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 05:01:42PM +0200, Sven Lankes wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:47:49AM -0400, Eric Sparks Christensen wrote:
And it's now basically decided that I need to take the X out of the EVR for all modules, and transtion drupal* to drupal6* in rawhide, and to drupal5* in EL-5? If this is correct, I'll get on it this week.
Unless we want to suggest a change to the FPC which I wouldn't know how to justify.
I'll change my pending review request to use drupal6* and only request branches for F15 and EL.
In my opinion this needs to happen. Let's put together a request for the FPC or whoever to evaluate. This shouldn't be a big deal and we are not going to get anywhere just going back and forth here. Clearly there is a need here and we can make this happen sooner.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I feel that we have now agreed on:
rename drupal to drupal6 in F15+
EL5 and EL6 get drupal6 (no change - this is already in testing)
Just getting to submitting reviews for these. I wanted to sanity-check something, please tell me if this doesn't work.
We want to rename drupal to drupal6 in F15+. We have drupal6 already, and it already has a devel branch due to the dist-git no-devel-branch thingy. Should I not just dead.package drupal in master, un-dead-package drupal6 in master, and have it there, and only there, obsolete drupal == 6?
It would be great to see Toshio or another packaging super-expert chime in here, to save time. :-)
But I *think* that's correct. That way 'drupal' will not continue on in F-15 -- only 'drupal6'.
Will that obsolete catch any drupal package with a major number of 6? Again, I think so, but I haven't done an obsolete in so long I'd rather have someone experienced give more useful advice.
Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 01:40:11PM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 05:01:42PM +0200, Sven Lankes wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:47:49AM -0400, Eric Sparks Christensen wrote:
> And it's now basically decided that I need to take the X out of the > EVR for all modules, and transtion drupal* to drupal6* in rawhide, and > to drupal5* in EL-5? If this is correct, I'll get on it this week. > > Unless we want to suggest a change to the FPC which I wouldn't know how to justify.
I'll change my pending review request to use drupal6* and only request branches for F15 and EL.
In my opinion this needs to happen. Let's put together a request for the FPC or whoever to evaluate. This shouldn't be a big deal and we are not going to get anywhere just going back and forth here. Clearly there is a need here and we can make this happen sooner.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I feel that we have now agreed on:
rename drupal to drupal6 in F15+
EL5 and EL6 get drupal6 (no change - this is already in testing)
Just getting to submitting reviews for these. I wanted to sanity-check something, please tell me if this doesn't work.
We want to rename drupal to drupal6 in F15+. We have drupal6 already, and it already has a devel branch due to the dist-git no-devel-branch thingy. Should I not just dead.package drupal in master, un-dead-package drupal6 in master, and have it there, and only there, obsolete drupal == 6?
It would be great to see Toshio or another packaging super-expert chime in here, to save time. :-)
But I *think* that's correct. That way 'drupal' will not continue on in F-15 -- only 'drupal6'.
Will that obsolete catch any drupal package with a major number of 6? Again, I think so, but I haven't done an obsolete in so long I'd rather have someone experienced give more useful advice.
Review already submitted. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=646663
That obsolete wasn't literal. I was thinking Obsoletes drupal <= %{version}-%{release}.
-J
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 07:28, Paul W. Frields stickster@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 07:43:51AM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
Personally, I'd keep to the same conventions regarding X as in existing modules.
WRT separate drupal stacks, with two reviews per package, is a necessary evil, at least for EL-5. I'm also wondering if we should put the drupal 5 stack in EL-6 as well as the drupal6 stack. It's not simply the same package with different names, it's got entirely different Requires and file placement to allow it to be installed in parallel, allowing Enterprise users to upgrade at their own pace, which is more in keeping with the mission of RHEL/CentOS/EPEL, as opposed to Fedora, where you can say "Ok, as of F-XX, you're upgrading your Drupal install to Drupal 7. Period."
Good to ask the question, though, Sven, and I totally get where you're coming from.
Sorry, I just sent a message asking about this in response to another thread on this list, maybe best to let that one die and we'll discuss here. My mail delivery hadn't caught up so I didn't see this thread. :-)
The Drupal upstream is *highly* unlikely to ever drop the 5.x/6.x in their versioning conventions. Making our versioning agree as much as possible with upstream is generally considered the right thing to do for packaging, so using 5.x.1.2 or 6.x.3.0 should be acceptable, because the 'x' alphabetic character is used upstream meaningfully.
I also agree with Jon that Drupal 6 isn't just an upgrade to Drupal 5, there's a whole set of schematic changes that make them quite different products, and applications that live on one or the other framework that make both of them useful.
I would like to see drupal-5.x removed since it is soon to EOL'd. A drupal5 would be a good replacement for it.
I would motion that we do this:
For Drupal 5:
- Core package: 'drupal' in EL-5 and EL-6 (which we have now)
- Modules NVR example: drupal-$MODULE-5.x.1.0-1
Make sure these install in %{_datadir}/drupal
For Drupal 6:
- Core package: 'drupal6' in EL-5 and EL-6
- Modules NVR example: drupal6-$MODULE-6.x.1.0-1
Make sure these install in %{_datadir}/drupal6
- Transition Fedora package to be drupal6, since we may want a
parallel installable drupal7 package there soon. :-) Since there's no parallel Drupal 5 package in Fedora, this shouldn't be too much of a disturbance in the force.
This would give maximum flexibility for parallel installation, right?
-- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com _______________________________________________ logistics mailing list logistics@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 07:43:51AM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
WRT separate drupal stacks, with two reviews per package, is a necessary evil, at least for EL-5. I'm also wondering if we should put the drupal 5 stack in EL-6 as well as the drupal6 stack. It's not simply the same package with different names, it's got entirely different Requires and file placement to allow it to be installed in parallel, allowing Enterprise users to upgrade at their own pace, which is more in keeping with the mission of RHEL/CentOS/EPEL [...]
While I generally agree I think that EPEL6 should no longer ship Drupal 5. Drupal 5 will no longer receive Security Support once Drupal 7 comes out (which will probably be within the next couple of months) and then you end up supporting something unsupportable for many, many years.
If someone cannot update to Drupal 6 then they should either stay on EL5 or manually exclude it from updates.
logistics@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Eric Christensen -
Jon Ciesla -
Paul W. Frields -
Stephen John Smoogen -
Sven Lankes -
Toshio Kuratomi