Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 07:43:51AM -0500, Jon Ciesla 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.
>>
>> 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."
>>
>> Good to ask the question, though, Sven, and I totally get where you're
>> coming from.
>>
>
> Sorry, I just sent a message asking about this in response to another
> thread on this list, maybe best to let that one die and we'll discuss
> here. My mail delivery hadn't caught up so I didn't see this
> thread. :-)
>
> The Drupal upstream is *highly* unlikely to ever drop the 5.x/6.x in
> their versioning conventions. Making our versioning agree as much as
> possible with upstream is generally considered the right thing to do
> for packaging, so using 5.x.1.2 or 6.x.3.0 should be acceptable,
> because the 'x' alphabetic character is used upstream meaningfully.
>
> I also agree with Jon that Drupal 6 isn't just an upgrade to Drupal 5,
> there's a whole set of schematic changes that make them quite
> different products, and applications that live on one or the other
> framework that make both of them useful.
>
> I would motion that we do this:
>
> For Drupal 5:
> * Core package: 'drupal' in EL-5 and EL-6 (which we have now)
> * Modules NVR example: drupal-$MODULE-5.x.1.0-1
> Make sure these install in %{_datadir}/drupal
>
> For Drupal 6:
> * Core package: 'drupal6' in EL-5 and EL-6
> * Modules NVR example: drupal6-$MODULE-6.x.1.0-1
> Make sure these install in %{_datadir}/drupal6
> * Transition Fedora package to be drupal6, since we may want a
> parallel installable drupal7 package there soon. :-) Since there's
> no parallel Drupal 5 package in Fedora, this shouldn't be too much
> of a disturbance in the force.
>
> This would give maximum flexibility for parallel installation, right?
>
>
I like all of this. I can understand aesthetically why we should rename
drupal to drupal6 in preparation for drupal7, but my laziness says we
could leave it alone and just do drupal7 when it's ready.
Even though the rename would be needed for the base package and all the
modules, and would be a bit of a pain, but it would make the maintenance
and cross porting of modules between Fedora and EPEL simpler.
Maybe we do this only in rawhide?
-J
--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
-d. bowie