Playground repo status

Honza Horak hhorak at redhat.com
Wed Oct 7 21:45:28 UTC 2015


On 10/05/2015 10:52 AM, Michal Srb wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> On 10/01/2015 10:59 AM, Honza Horak wrote:
>> As promised, these are the meeting logs that are related to Playground:
>> https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2015-03-12/env-and-stacks.2015-03-12-13.00.log.html
>>
>> https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2015-03-26/env-and-stacks.2015-03-26-13.00.log.html
>>
>> https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2015-04-23/env-and-stacks.2015-04-23-12.04.log.html
>>
>> https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2015-05-28/env-and-stacks.2015-05-28-17.00.log.html
>>
>> https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/env-and-stacks/env-and-stacks.2015-07-16-12.11.log.html
>>
>
> Thanks for gathering all those links. I have a question regarding
> playground repository. I was wondering whether there is an overlap
> between playground and "reduce anti-bundling requirements" proposal that
> is being discussed on devel mailing list right now. I always thought of
> playground repository as a place where we could put projects like
> Chromium, i.e. projects with good licensing, but with heavy bundling
> (and where we could rely on upstream to address security issues in a
> timely manner). Assuming that current discussions will lead to changes
> in bundling policy in Fedora, what would be the advantage of putting
> things into playground instead of official Fedora repositories?

Well, bundling was one of the most often guidelines that put quite high 
barrier when packaging a SW in Fedora, but it's far from being the only one.

Ruby maintainers often see users using only tools like gem2rpm to 
produce a new RPM, but that's far from being accepted during full 
package review. Similar in python, perl and other cases. So that may be 
one of the use case where playground helps.

Another use case is SCL, that are not available in proper Fedora, but 
they might be included in Playground. Generally, different versions of 
some SW (if it doesn't conflict with base, sometimes it is possible).

Honza

> Michal
>
>>
>> Some quick brainstorming about how the process could look like:
>>
>> * submit a request (https://fedorahosted.org/env-and-stacks/)
>>
>> * somebody does checking (small review that focuses on license,
>> influencing the base system, general quality, but only license is
>> really a blocker; plus conflicts with base system -- yes, playground
>> doesn't allow to pick some of the coprs -- use `dnf copr enable` for
>> enabling some conflicting packages) --
>> https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2015-04-23/env-and-stacks.2015-04-23-12.04.log.html
>>
>>
>> * after checking, something like bodhi karma happens -- either package
>> stays without enough votes some reasonable period or if E&S people
>> provide enough voting, the package is pushed into playground sooner
>>
>> (something from the above was taken from the logs above with a little
>> own imagination; some workflow plus some nice diagram would be handy
>> about what is happening in playground and how it works with approving
>> a copr to be in playground after this is ready)
>>
>> Honza
>> _______________________________________________
>> env-and-stacks mailing list
>> env-and-stacks at lists.fedoraproject.org
>> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/env-and-stacks
>
> _______________________________________________
> env-and-stacks mailing list
> env-and-stacks at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/env-and-stacks


More information about the env-and-stacks mailing list