GitLab packaging progress and discussion about deployment on fedorahosted

[Jamie Nguyen]

On 03/07/13 19:57, Axilleas Pipinellis wrote:
> 1) GitLab uses some forked gems.
> 
> These are the forked gems by GitLab which add some extra functionality
> or fix some bugs of the original gem:
> 
> Upstream      | GitLab
> -------------------------------------
> grit	      | gitlab-grit
> grack         | gitlab-grack
> gollum-lib    | gitlab-gollum-lib
> omniauth-ldap | gitlab_omniauth-ldap
> pygments.rb   | gitlab-pygments.rb
> -------------------------------------
> 
> Vit Ondruch, my mentor, pointed me in these FESCO [4] and FPC [5]
> tickets, which pretty much conclude that:
> 
> "FESCo is fine with forks as long as they are parallel installable and
> don't interfere with each other."
> 
> and
> 
> "The FPC does not see a need for additional guidelines relating to
> forks at this time, they should be treated like any other package."
> 
> I also raised this issue in #fedora-devel today and they told me the
> same thing FESCo concluded.
> 
> I think GitLab's forks don't abide by FESCo's verdict, as both original
> and forked gem are called with the same library, eg. require 'grit', so
> there is no distinction between them.
> 
> I am cc'ing Sytse Sijbrandij from GitLab's core team to talk about what
> changes could be made in order for the forks to get accepted.

If upstream don't fix it themselves, couldn't you just patch gitlab-grit
and gitlab so that it does "require 'gitlab-grit'" instead?


-- 
Jamie Nguyen