F21 System Wide Change: SCL

Marcela Mašláňová mmaslano at redhat.com
Thu Apr 17 18:11:59 UTC 2014

On 04/17/2014 05:40 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 04:35:25PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>> 2014-04-14 14:13 GMT+02:00 Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik at redhat.com>:
>>      2. Upload packages into git - specific branch based on Fedora version and
>>      name
>>      of collection. For stable repo we must be able to replicate builds from git
>>      repo, which Fedora own.
>> I'm confused; what precisely is the layout you are proposing for pkgs git?  I
>> read this as ruby.git/{f20,f21,f21-$sclname}; is that really the proposal?
> I'm not sure what the proposal is but the FPC wants to have all scls live in
> a separate package than the "mainstream" package.  Like this:
> ruby.git/{f20,f21}
> fdr-ruby1.9.3-ruby.git/{f20,f21}
> This matches with what mingw does and after working on creating an SCL, it
> seems to be a better plan to keep the two sources separate as scl spec files
> are much different than mainstream specs.
> -Toshio
I still believe using tested workflow, which means one git for normal 
and scl packages is much better approach from release engineering point 
of view. You are creating new problems, which weren't seen by SCL team 
yet. I already stated my view many times, changes for Fedora must be 
done anyway, so I as maintainer doesn't care much about branch or new git.

Which parts of the draft are approved? [1] If I read it correctly I 
should rename the metapackage ruby193 to scl-ruby1.9.3 and ruby193-ruby 
to scl-ruby1.9.3-ruby. Is that right?



More information about the devel mailing list