repotag in EPEL (was: Re: Plan for tomorrows (20070426) FESCO meeting)

[Axel Thimm]

On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 06:41:58PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 17:21 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > But check out the remaining 2%: It's firmware and data files that
> > should not carry a disttag (and they should not even be rebuilt at
> > all).
> 
> Not all of those packages are things that shouldn't have disttags. Some
> packagers choose not to use %{?dist} for their own reasons, and I
> respect that.

Well, still, do have a look and see that the reasons are as stated
above. :)

Anyway, that's not that important, the roadblocks are elsewhere.

> > > If (and this is still a big if) we want to implement repotags for
> > EPEL,
> > > I think the best way is to take the packager out of the loop
> > entirely,
> > > and append .epel to the release at the buildsystem layer.
> > 
> > Same goes for the disttag itself and when I brought up this request
> > some years ago to have an appendable "releasesuffix" macro for rpm the
> > god of rpm loudly laughed and looked away ;) 
> 
> Not at the rpm layer, no, at the buildsystem layer. This is a notable
> difference.

I've tried (and even have code) to manipulate this outside of rpm and
it is quite messy. The problem is that you either cheat and don't use
the same specfile, or you start fiddling with the rpm headers
invalidtaing any signatures on the way.

The latter is of course fixable by resigning the rpm, but it is a
rather dirty hack, instead having a simple releasesuffix option to rpm
via a macro is more flexible, less a hack and callable by any
buildsystem as well.

But to be honest, even a hackish solution is better than no solution.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20070430/9c04fe53/attachment-0002.bin