package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 4.4.2013 15:47, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a):
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Vít Ondruch <vondruch at redhat.com 
> <mailto:vondruch at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>     Dne 3.4.2013 18:15, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a):
>>     On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Vít Ondruch <vondruch at redhat.com
>>     <mailto:vondruch at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         Dne 3.4.2013 15:59, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a):
>>>         On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Vít Ondruch
>>>         <vondruch at redhat.com <mailto:vondruch at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>         ... and now, can we be specific? No handwaving, how would
>>>         parallel installation _actually_ benefit you?  How would the
>>>         new system look like and work?
>>>
>>>             Now, there comes security fix for Rails. Typically it
>>>             impacts every stable Rails branch, i.e. it should be
>>>             applied to two packages. But you already denied me to
>>>             use cherry-pick straight forward, since I am not working
>>>             with one package/repository but with two packages. So
>>>             again more work then it necessarily needed to be.
>>>
>>>
>>>         I can't see that parallel installation would help. Because
>>>         there would be one git repo for all versions?  That's
>>>         orthogonal to having parallel installation of RPMs.
>>
>>         Yes, they would be in one git repo with single maintainer (or
>>         group of maintainers).
>>
>>
>>     AFAICS that is a Fedora dist-git concern that is completely
>>     unrelated to parallel installation.  Fedora dist-git could
>>     support a single git repo for multiple packages (with different
>>     names) without rpm supporting parallel installation.
>
>     Since .spec file is named the same as package, then you cannot
>     merge straight forward the changes from one package into another.
>
>
> That is again a Fedora policy, not a RPM requirement.

Ok, so shall I read it an "go ahead, and propose Fedora policy change, 
that although package name includes version, the .spec file should be 
named without the version."?

Actually it would make sense to me. However, it makes exception from 
exception, which is fail.

>
>>         Actually then somebody comes and he things that he doesn't
>>         need just Rails 3.0, but he needs specifically Rails 3.0.5,
>>         so he well do another new package rails305. You cannot stop
>>         this explosion of various versioned modules.
>>
>>
>>     Yes, you cannot.  How is that different in the case where rpm
>>     supports/doesn't support parallel installation?
>
>     There might be defined upgrade path, i.e. you might be able to
>     define that your branch is for Rails 3.0. In RubyGems, we would
>     define it as as ~> 3.0.0 dependency [1].
>
>
> Now I can define it using the package name, and even modify it later 
> using Obsoletes:/Provides:.
>
>>>         I can't see that parallel installation would help.  We need
>>>         to create and maintain as many packages as users require in
>>>         either case.
>>         It would help, since I could focus on packaging new rails
>>         version instead of fixing compatibility issues of current
>>         applications in Fedora with the framework they use.
>>
>>
>>     The two are again, AFAICS, completely orthogonal to parallel
>>     installation support.  Instead of fixing compatibility issues the
>>     current applications could just depend on rails23 or something. 
>>     Not having parallel installation does not automatically compel
>>     anyone to port applications; this is primarily determined by
>>     Fedora policy/preference and Fedora tooling, not rpm limitations.
>
>     You cannot think about parallel installation without broader
>     scope. You might find a lot of orthogonal things in this issue.
>     Something is RPM issue, something else YUM, something else Fedora
>     policies. This gives always freedom to claim that it could be done
>     differently, not in my component etc.
>
>
> Well, sure, what Bohuslav said.  Some people want Fedora to accept 
> such RPM packages, some people want RPM support, some people might 
> even want Fedora to ship unmodified gems/jars/eggs without RPM.
>
>
> As you probably already know, there is fairly strong resistance 
> against Fedora shipping many versions because some of as feel that we 
> wouldn't be able to maintain them properly.

I feel that we do so and we are not able to maintain it properly. So 
there would not be any change in this regard.

>
> That doesn't prevent us from discussing RPM features that Fedora 
> wouldn't use (but might be useful for coprs and RHEL).  It also 
> doesn't prevent us from discussing running of unmodified upstream 
> packages on a Fedora system.  But we need to distill what the goals of 
> the discussion and the _actual requirements_ are.

I was never speaking about unmodified upstream packages, this just 
derails the discussion.

>
> If you need Fedora policy to support multiple versions, and don't care 
> about RPM, please say so.
> If you need RPM to support multiple versions, and don't care about 
> Fedora policy, please say so (and suggest practical semantics for (yum 
> update)).
> If you need unmodified upstream deployment systems and unmodified 
> upstream packages with minimal Fedora/RPM interference/involvement, 
> please say so.
>
> You've argued for RPM support, but it seems that the difficulties you 
> actually encounter are related to Fedora policies, and I wanted to 
> make that clear.
>     Mirek
>

That's both, RPM and Fedora plolicies and don't forget about YUM. They 
are not independent.


Vít
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20130404/fa900f4f/attachment-0001.html>