Playground Repo Requirements Document

Marcela Mašláňová mmaslano at
Sat Mar 1 19:42:09 UTC 2014

On 01/03/14 19:10, Tadej Janež wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 13:53 +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
>> You are right we reached some conclusion on conflicts and replace, but
>> what if we want for example new v8? We have terribly old v8 in current
>> Fedora and conflicts might be a good solution in this case.
> I think the Playground repo is not the right place to start providing
> newer versions of existing packages in Fedora's main repository.
> My arguments are:
> 1) The package in the main repo went through a proper package review.
> The replacing package didn't.
> 2) The package's maintainer probably has reasons why he hasn't updated
> the package (we should trust maintainers by default and not over-ride
> them).
> The way to approach this, in my opinion, is to talk to the maintainer of
> the package in the main repository and work out if it is reasonable to
> update the package in the desired Fedora version or not.
> If the reason why the maintainer hasn't updated the package is lack of
> time, applying for co-maintenance is the way to go.
> There will be cases when the maintainer doesn't want to update the
> package in the main repository and a newer version is needed/desired.
> In case the package is:
> 1) some leaf package (e.g. an application), it would be sensible to just
> create a COPR repo for it.
> 2) part of a software stack (e.g. a library), it would be sensible to
> create a SCL with the required versions of the packages of the software
> stack and provide it in the Playgroud repo. This SCL could then be
> required by the applications needing this particular versions.
> Tadej
> _______________________________________________
> env-and-stacks mailing list
> env-and-stacks at
I was afraid to say "you should use SCL" :) There are many use-cases for 
additional repositories and we have to pick the most sane, therefore I 
agree with your points.


More information about the env-and-stacks mailing list