[Fedora-packaging] SCL -- buildtime information

[Marcela Mašláňová]

On 10/07/2013 10:24 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>
> I had a chance to talk with dgilmore last week about building SCLs.  From
> the conversation it seems that it will probably be harder to build SCLs in
> Fedora than it is inside of RH.  Here's the summary:
>
> There's two models that we can choose from:
>
> * Building to separate targets per scl.  For that model you can have
>    a separate branch per scl.  This is more or less the style that's being
>    used inside of RH.  However, in Fedora land this would mean that we need
>    to have seperate yum repos per scl, seperate bodhi updates targets, and some
>    way to add repo files to systems for each scl.
RHSCL has only one repo for more than one scls. Why would we need more 
repos? Do you mean we would need one repo for Fedora and one for scls 
because technical issues with creating one repo above all of those?

>    - Note: there may be additional work as well.  dgilmore asked whether the
>      SCL model is to build once for the oldest supported OS release and then
>      that SCL build will run on any newer OS release.  If that's not the case (I
>      didn't think it was but confirmation would be nice) then you'd need to
>      have separate yum/bodhi/etc for every $SCL-$OSRelease combination.
>
It depends what will be the workflow. We spoke about accepting the new 
scl by FESCo as a Change. In this case it would be possible to build 
only in the latest Fedora.
We didn't speak about build once and run on more Fedoras. It did work in 
some cases, but if packages depend on something, which changed a lot 
it's safer to rebuild the whole scl stack.
> * Instead we could build for the main Fedora Repo.  If we do this, the spec
>    file, git repo name, and srpm package name all need to match.  That means
>    we'd have a separate git-level package for each package+scl combination.
>    So if we had scl-php5.6 and we needed a php and php-gettext package for it
>    we'd need separate git-level packages named scl-php5.6-php and
>    scl-php5.6-php-gettext.
It doesn't have to match, only during the import phase. The srpm has 
name without the prefix, so the build does work. I'm not sure how 
similar are our infrastructures, but I guess this will be the same 
issue. Scl was designed to work with it.
>
> dgilmore did say he'd like to test if there might be a way to separate
> targets building to the same tag.  If he could figure out a way to do that
> it might allow us to have the packages stored in separate branches but build
> them for the same yum repositories (which might allow us to skip the
> separate bodhi targets as well).  He'd need time to get an infrastructure
> setup to test this, though, so it would take a good deal of time (for
> instance if we're delaying F21 in order to do releng work, this might be
> a project for that time.)
>
>
> After talking with him, my recommendation would be to have separate
> packages.  That allows us to get scls built in Fedora sooner.  Otherwise we
> won't be able to do anything with them until the fedora.next Outer Rings
> become viable.  I'm not anticipating that we'd have many SCLs to begin with
> so we'd hopefully be able to migrate those SCLs that we build at first into
> whatever form things take in the future.
>
> -Toshio
>
Both solution, branches or new packages, has their pros and cons. I 
guess we don't want to decide for one option, because there might be 
unclear technical details in the other.

>
>
> --
> packaging mailing list
> packaging at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
>
Marcela