Drupal Versioning in EPEL

[Eric "Sparks" Christensen]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 08:43, Jon Ciesla <limb at jcomserv.net> wrote:
> Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 10/15/2010 06:02 AM, Sven Lankes wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Fedora has a bunch of drupal-modules called drupal-modulename with a
>>> version of 6.x-1.2 (which is what upstream uses to show that this is for
>>> the drupal 6 range).
>>>
>>
>> I was a bit over-cautious when I saw the "X" in the versioning.  I spoke
>> to several folks over in #fedora-devel which raised the concern that the
>> X might have problems down the road if they ever changed the X to a
>> number.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Eric suggests in the review [1] that I call the package
>>> drupal6-flexinode-1.2 instead of drupal-flexinode-6.x-1.2 - but that
>>> name would only work for EPEL as the other drupal modules which are
>>> already in Fedora are following the 6.x-1.2 naming scheme.
>>>
>>
>> If this is already being done on other packages (I didn't look) then
>> perhaps keeping the same throughout would be a good thing.
>>
>> Personally I'm not a fan of maintaining the same package with different
>> names.  Just doesn't feel like a good solution to me.
>>
>>>
>>> I'm not very experienced wrt. EPEL packaging so I may be missing best
>>> practices here but having a completely separate drupal stack for EPEL
>>> (with two reviews per package ...) feels very wrong to me.
>>>
>>> Not sure how feasible it is wrt. the progress of fedora insight but I'd
>>> think that the best way forward would be to leave EL-5 on Drupal 5,
>>> update the drupal package in EL-6 to Drupal 6.
>>>
>>> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=642856
>>> [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569833
>>>
>>>
>>
>> - --Eric
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>>
>> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJMuDMOAAoJEDbiLlqcYamxyhQQAKKdkz2XlR5U+k5ySv2VH4MC
>> gZgVe72Zs66ft/pu2MJUD11UtkOMASKJJ73qfG0Utu3TlOB/PeepY5BZ6UT4FsJN
>> GjuO7rlnI1hoEUJ43puRNb5b1hbVelw0ke3JH5saOM7OLvDnKMcLN7+nL4xwpWMd
>> +x2w6VzOsnGg5ee0MndPcKxIr5psh4D0xMhsFo+ZpaYX5lBKnoAiap1wFswBvwBN
>> Inmc6ivIxq90pG/hqKwpESwtRzwk4VQVpsETPlE072azagE6KrH+psLCkZZFmSVO
>> 6mCQKQQzhpWGyRhUGF7eB8wTuGk9OfWT7Qs3YkvqDen9yGlFGr5bKC+UuhYi1JYb
>> Jt0Qhrx8TpJTMjsbcIAn5VhCdU9H/R/7LHtfaH3VtCZFkXLU2iHGJb7b7xTlX97L
>> c4auUDr4wRgSrCQpUOfeEPY87BNc1RLXu1SJZxCucABsyJc6veL9alcieF98ctL4
>> 83fc8uokpxFAY6n5JgOKVW+LV5jysDO5ESwtAMo4robdoStxJrz9AQ0IrcHbqEG4
>> 85TrSfCiUuOvRZ5VEMF6CJlCJCoSMe7pZ+dslHan5saXx3smqMVgjFdfsgXzLmMB
>> OyvEhvz+fttlN5Zn9AKdbEjxjfk/PgKViPlxQX8N+RaGAp64/w2TjSdS1ie/AC+b
>> nG6pQQviXIvCLzY18u4o
>> =DJFy
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> _______________________________________________
>> logistics mailing list
>> logistics at lists.fedoraproject.org
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
>>
>
> Personally, I'd keep to the same conventions regarding X as in existing
> modules.

I'm good with that.  I've updated the review ticket appropriately.

>
> WRT separate drupal stacks, with two reviews per package, is a necessary
> evil, at least for EL-5.  I'm also wondering if we should put the drupal 5
> stack in EL-6 as well as the drupal6 stack.  It's not simply the same
> package with different names, it's got entirely different Requires and file
> placement to allow it to be installed in parallel, allowing Enterprise users
> to upgrade at their own pace, which is more in keeping with the mission of
> RHEL/CentOS/EPEL, as opposed to Fedora, where you can say "Ok, as of F-XX,
> you're upgrading your Drupal install to Drupal 7.  Period."

Probably not a bad idea.  The package should be changed to
drupal6-flexifilter, though.

>
> Good to ask the question, though, Sven, and I totally get where you're
> coming from.
>
> -J

--Eric