#5894: git branches for SCL packages

[Fedora Release Engineering]

#5894: git branches for SCL packages
------------------------------+-----------------------
  Reporter:  mmaslano         |      Owner:  rel-eng@…
      Type:  task             |     Status:  new
 Milestone:  Fedora 21 Alpha  |  Component:  git
Resolution:                   |   Keywords:
Blocked By:                   |   Blocking:
------------------------------+-----------------------

Comment (by bkabrda):

 Replying to [comment:59 toshio]:
 > Replying to [comment:57 bkabrda]:
 > > Replying to [comment:55 toshio]:
 > > > Replying to [comment:48 bkabrda]:
 > > > > Replying to [comment:46 toshio]:
 > > > > > As part of the FPC discussion of making SCLs official and this
 ticket, the decision has been made that SCL macros are not allowed in the
 mainstream spec files.
 > > > >
 > > > > When has this decision been made and where is it in guidelines?
 AFAIK it is customary to write specfiles according to *current* guidelines
 and when new guidelines come in effect, old-style specfiles are
 "grandfathered" (I believe that is the term for "they don't need to be
 touched assuming they still work"). At the time the python-nightly
 branches were created I didn't see (and I still don't see) any part of
 guidelines that they'd break. Therefore I don't see why I should remove
 them.
 > > > >
 > > >
 > > > FPC had discussed this and quickly decided that separation was going
 to be the foundation of the way SCLs would be managed in Fedora.  Since
 you want it to be official, I made a draft and it was approved at last
 week's FPC meeting.  Guidelines have been updated to reflect that.
 > >
 > > What you're saying here is completely independent of what FPC voted
 on.
 >
 > Incorrect.  FPC took two votes on SCLs.  The one approving separation
 was to approve this:
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/SCL_Macros_Change

 I know that FPC took two votes on SCLs. What I'm saying is that how SCLs
 are going to be managed in Fedora is completely unrelated to whether one
 can or cannot keep SCL macros in specfiles for standard branches.

 > > Separation is IMO not fine, but given FPC (for reasons I can't see)
 decided that we have to go with separate repos, I'll live with that.
 > >
 > > What puzzles me is how this affects putting/not putting SCL macros in
 mainline packages. I went through FPC meeting log and I can't see *a
 single argument* that would say why putting SCL macros in mainline
 packages is bad. On the other hand, using the macros in mainline packages
 has advantages, most importantly minimal diff between SCL and mainline
 package. This results in easier merging of changes/patches between the
 two. I'd really like FPC members to give their reasons for voting for that
 proposal. If I should move this discussion to a new/existing FPC ticket,
 please just say so.
 > >
 >
 > This has been discussed to death in FPC for months and months.  I first
 raised this question here:
 >
 > http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-10-31/fedora-
 meeting-1.2013-10-31-16.04.log.html
 >
 > Whoever cares would need to check the SCL section from all of the
 meeting logs from that point forward to see the many reasons that FPC's
 thinking on the subject has solidified to this over time.

 I checked a lot of them (not all, I admit) and I still see no reasoning
 behind the decision to prohibit putting SCL macros to mainline specfiles
 (which is different from actually building packages as SCL packages).
 Would you care to share the list of reasons here? It doesn't have to be
 full, but I'd really like to see why keeping the macros in mainline
 specfiles should be prohibited.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5894#comment:60>
Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng>
Release Engineering for the Fedora Project