GitLab packaging progress and discussion about deployment on fedorahosted

[Jamie Nguyen]

On 03/07/13 20:09, Jamie Nguyen wrote:
> 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?

Actually, ignore me! ;)


-- 
Jamie Nguyen