Hi,
I'd like to ask the Packaging Committee (which afaics is responsible for the Packaging standards used in Fedora projects, which includes EPEL) for advice and a formal decision about using a repotag in EPEL. There are a lot of people strongly urging to use one -- see attached mails or the threads in the online archive at
https://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2007-March/msg00224.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2007-March/msg00258.html
I (and some other EPEL SIG members afaics) don't care much about using one or not. But afaics the use of a repotag is unwanted in Fedora-land up to now afaics.
If the answer from the PC is "yes, EPEL is free to use a repotag" then please decide how to actually use it -- Add a "repotag" macro defined by the buildsys or overload %{dist}, ...
We need a decision soon. Thanks for your support.
CU thl
On Sunday 18 March 2007, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
I (and some other EPEL SIG members afaics) don't care much about using one or not. But afaics the use of a repotag is unwanted in Fedora-land up to now afaics.
If the answer from the PC is "yes, EPEL is free to use a repotag" then please decide how to actually use it -- Add a "repotag" macro defined by the buildsys or overload %{dist}, ...
My .02€: as a user of an enterprise distro, using several repos which ship the same software in slightly different packages is most definitely something I wouldn't do (at least without actively taking care of overlaps myself eg. with explicit per-repo exclusions/inclusions in depsolver configs, and accepting the blame if it blows up on me). Repotag seems to encourage such repo mixing somewhat, which is why I'm slightly leaning against it. Or put another way, I really don't care because I think if I'm in a situation where repotags between repos start to matter at all, I should sanity check my setup before doing anything else.
But if there is a "repotag", it needs to be placed in the release tag in a way that it doesn't affect version comparisons between package releases (within a repo). Just defining %{dist} eg. as .elX.epel wouldn't work as %{dist} is optional, but defining eg. %{repo} and making its usage rules the same as %{dist}'s (except if dist is there too, repo needs to come directly appended to it) could work.
On Sun, Mar 18, 2007 at 03:17:13PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
I'd like to ask the Packaging Committee (which afaics is responsible for the Packaging standards used in Fedora projects, which includes EPEL) for advice and a formal decision about using a repotag in EPEL.
We do need a mandate, but that's in the works, so let's assume the FPC is empowered and willing (I am, I can't speak about the rest of the members) to define EPEL guidelines as well.
There are a lot of people strongly urging to use one
I (and some other EPEL SIG members afaics) don't care much about using one or not. But afaics the use of a repotag is unwanted in Fedora-land up to now afaics.
If the answer from the PC is "yes, EPEL is free to use a repotag" then please decide how to actually use it -- Add a "repotag" macro defined by the buildsys or overload %{dist}, ...
Technically, if EPEL gets a repotag it should be via %dist, so that no specfile using %dist will need to be touched. Furthermore it would have to be something like say ".el5.epel" or similar to fit the usual <buildid>.<disttag>.<repotag> structure.
The topic is a bit political as it influences the releationship between EPEL and other 3rd party RHEL supporters. Furthermore we don't even have a *disttag* *mandatory* for FC because there are different views withing the contributor body (inner politics if you like).
I think the general repotag issue needs to be solved by EPEL (whether there will be one or not). We are trying to focus on purely technically oriented topics and avoid any political decisions, e.g. what software is allowed to be packaged, the range of licenses allowed, the firmware policy and so on are mostly input for us (there is a two way communication to fesco, of course) and we outline the policies.
So if *the EPEL wants* a repotag we'll be able to shape it into guidelines. If it doesn't we'll write that down as well. But we'd probably not decide on whether EPEL marks their packages or not and thus potentially create political issues between EPEL and other repos by the feather of the FPC.
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 19:12 +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
Repotag seems to encourage such repo mixing somewhat, which is why I'm slightly leaning against it.
OTOH, we'll never completely prevent people shooting themselves in the foot; all we can do make that less painful.
But if there is a "repotag", it needs to be placed in the release tag in a way that it doesn't affect version comparisons between package releases (within a repo). Just defining %{dist} eg. as .elX.epel wouldn't work as %{dist} is optional,
Could EPEL make it mandoatory for its packages ? It seems that expanding %{dist} for this would be very low overhead and unintrusive for packagers.
David
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 04:05:09PM -0700, David Lutterkort wrote:
Could EPEL make it mandoatory for its packages ? It seems that expanding %{dist} for this would be very low overhead and unintrusive for packagers.
For some packages it is better not to have a dist tag (noarch data packages, mostly).
-- Pat
On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 14:27 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 08:03:12AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
Indeed. I'm not necessarily opposed to the repotag being part of %{dist} for EPEL, but I am opposed to making %{dist} mandatory.
I don't think disttag was called for becoming mandatory.
I just wanted to make that crystal clear. :)
~spot
On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 00:22 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 04:05:09PM -0700, David Lutterkort wrote:
Could EPEL make it mandoatory for its packages ? It seems that expanding %{dist} for this would be very low overhead and unintrusive for packagers.
For some packages it is better not to have a dist tag (noarch data packages, mostly).
Indeed. I'm not necessarily opposed to the repotag being part of %{dist} for EPEL, but I am opposed to making %{dist} mandatory.
I've still not exactly heard a good reason for a repotag yet, or rather, what problem we solve with it.
Are we simply trying to identify the repository from which a package came for the purposes of enabling users to file a bug in the right place? Or is this something more complicated?
~spot
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Axel Thimm -
David Lutterkort -
Patrice Dumas -
Thorsten Leemhuis -
Tom Callaway -
Ville Skyttä