half baked idea for further baking: "fedora-ugly" repo

[Marcela Mašláňová]

On 02/13/2014 11:05 AM, Tadej Janež wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-11 at 14:23 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>
>> I think we need to support the use-cases of both Incubator (packages here
>> are destined for Commons once the packages are polished up) and Ugly (these
>> packages are usful for Fedora End Users to have access to but the upstream
>> and downstream packaging is such that we'd never want to push them to people
>> features as is).
>
> +1
>
>> I would like to avoid having two repositories for these two use cases if one
>> repository would fit the bill.
>
> +1. I also think the name of the repository should reflect that. I would
> suggest something catchy, like Fedora Easy or Fedora Playground (Honza
> Horak's suggestion), or something that would go with the Rings theme,
> like Fedora Mantle (implying the main Fedora repo is Core).
>
>> I think that many of these things get left out in the cold if we're
>> specifying that the new repo doesn't support conflicts between the new repo
>> and the Fedora Commons repo, the Core (once we figure out how to distribute
>> that), or each other.
>
> I think conflicts are an important thing to figure out before we
> continue laying plans for this new repo.
>
> I wouldn't throw all conflicts in the same bin. For example, I think
> it's ok to bundle libraries (though it would be cool if we could somehow
> detect it automatically and know which libraries are bundled), but I
> would not be in favour of allowing package naming conflicts.
>
> Regarding multiple parallelly installable versions of the same packages,
> are SCLs going to give us that?
Yes.
> Also, SCLs could be useful when packages have file system conflicts. On
> the other hand, would this be abusing SCLs?
>
It depends how hard would be to package it. I wouldn't push for SCL in 
every case.
>> We would definitely want people to know that we weren't promising security,
>> timely updates, etc... (indeed, we might want to tell people to expect
>> insecure code, packages that would languish, etc...) as there would be
>> a much higher duplication of code in this repo and likely more packages
>> which included versions that were no longer accepted upstream.
>
> +1.
>
> Tadej
>
> _______________________________________________
> env-and-stacks mailing list
> env-and-stacks at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/env-and-stacks
>
Yesterday I sent email to devel list about content and use-cases of the 
repo. No replies yet. Server WG will probably package Roles into SCL, 
but have them in main repo. Some incubating Roles might go in Playground 
repository.

Marcela