Drupal Versioning in EPEL

[Sven Lankes]

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

-- 
sven === jabber/xmpp: sven(a)lankes.net

[Eric Christensen]

-----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-----

[Jon Ciesla]

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(a)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

-- 
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

[Eric Christensen]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 08:43, Jon Ciesla <limb(a)jcomserv.net&gt; 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(a)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

[Jon Ciesla]

Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
>  On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 08:43, Jon Ciesla <limb(a)jcomserv.net&gt;
> 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(a)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
>     

-- 
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

[Paul W. Frields]

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(a)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                                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

[Jon Ciesla]

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(a)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

-- 
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

[Sven Lankes]

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.

-- 
sven === jabber/xmpp: sven(a)lankes.net

[Toshio Kuratomi]

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(a)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

[Sven Lankes]

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:
>  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. 
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.

-- 
sven === jabber/xmpp: sven(a)lankes.net

[Toshio Kuratomi]

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

[Stephen John Smoogen]

2010/10/15 Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger(a)gmail.com&gt;:
>  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(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
>  


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
“The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance.”
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"We have a strategic plan. It's called doing things.""
— Herb Kelleher, founder Southwest Airlines

[Paul W. Frields]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 02:35:33PM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>  2010/10/15 Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger(a)gmail.com&gt;:
>  > 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.

-- 
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

[Sven Lankes]

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 === jabber/xmpp: sven(a)lankes.net

[Jon Ciesla]

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

-- 
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

[Sven Lankes]

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(a)lankes.net

[Eric Christensen]

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 09:58, Sven Lankes <sven(a)lank.es&gt; 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(a)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

[Sven Lankes]

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 === jabber/xmpp: sven(a)lankes.net

[Jon Ciesla]

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:
>
>   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.
>
>     
That's what I see, too.  No need for FPC, I'll draw up the rename 
reviews soon.

-J

-- 
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

[Eric Christensen]

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:01, Sven Lankes <sven(a)lank.es&gt; 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

[Jon Ciesla]

Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
>  On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:01, Sven Lankes <sven(a)lank.es&gt;
> 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(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
>     
It can, but what would the benefit be to those sysadmins?

-J

-- 
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

[Eric Christensen]

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 13:09, Jon Ciesla <limb(a)jcomserv.net&gt; wrote:
>  Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:01, Sven Lankes <sven(a)lank.es&gt; 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(a)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

[Jon Ciesla]

Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
>  On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 13:09, Jon Ciesla <limb(a)jcomserv.net&gt;
> wrote:
>    
> > Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
> >     
> >> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:01, Sven Lankes <sven(a)lank.es&gt; 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(a)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(a)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

-- 
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

[Eric Christensen]

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 13:28, Jon Ciesla <limb(a)jcomserv.net&gt; wrote:
>  Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 13:09, Jon Ciesla <limb(a)jcomserv.net&gt; wrote:
> >
> >> Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:01, Sven Lankes <sven(a)lank.es&gt; 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(a)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(a)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

[Jon Ciesla]

Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
>  On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 13:28, Jon Ciesla <limb(a)jcomserv.net&gt;
> wrote:
>    
> > Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
> >     
> >> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 13:09, Jon Ciesla <limb(a)jcomserv.net&gt; wrote:
> >>
> >>       
> >>> Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
> >>>
> >>>         
> >>>> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:01, Sven Lankes <sven(a)lank.es&gt; 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(a)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(a)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(a)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

-- 
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

[Paul W. Frields]

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:
>  
>   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+ 
I presume this means that these will include the 6.x tarballs as a change?

>   4. 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                                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

[Jon Ciesla]

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:
> >
> >  1. rename drupal to drupal6 in F15+
> >
> >  2. 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?
> >  3. 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?
>
>    
> >  4. 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.
> >     
>
>     

-- 
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

[Toshio Kuratomi]

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:
>  >>
>  >>  1. rename drupal to drupal6 in F15+
>  >>
>  >>  2. 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

[Paul W. Frields]

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:
>  >>
>  >>  1. rename drupal to drupal6 in F15+
>  >>
>  >>  2. 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                                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

[Jon Ciesla]

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:
> >>>
> >>>  1. rename drupal to drupal6 in F15+
> >>>
> >>>  2. 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

-- 
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 07:28, Paul W. Frields <stickster(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
>  


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
“The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance.”
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"We have a strategic plan. It's called doing things.""
— Herb Kelleher, founder Southwest Airlines

[Sven Lankes]

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.

-- 
sven === jabber/xmpp: sven(a)lankes.net