On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 14:13:44 -0400 Avram Lubkin <aviso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'm looking for some clarification on the naming requirements for > SRPMs. > > In the EPEL 7 in Python 3 Plan Draft [1], it specifies that SRPM names > can't conflict with RHEL SRPM names, but in the Limited Arch Packages > [2]section of EPEL: Packaging, it seems to imply the SRPM name would > be the same, but the release number would be pretended with "0.". > > Could someone please clarify? > > If, in fact, the name can be the same, it will make it much easier to > provide Python 3 packages for EPEL since a separate package would not > be required in the Fedora Package DB. So, here's the thing (at least as I understand it): koji operates on source packages. If there's a package in RHEL called 'foo' and also one in EPEL called 'foo' it will use the epel one in all cases for everything that foo makes. So, with the limited arch packages this means that _ALL_ things building in koji will use the epel package. The reason for the prepended 0 is so that users don't install the epel package and instead get the newer rhel version. The limited arch guideline also says you should try and keep the package as close as possible to the rhel version. So, if we had say: python-foobar-1.0-1.el7.src.rpm in rhel that made a python-foobar-1.0-1.noarch.rpm and then we made a epel python-foobar-1.0-1.el7.src.rpm that had python3-foobar-1.0-1.noarch.rpm it would mean anything that builds against python-foobar in epel would break (it would be not found). End users would be ok, but buildroots could be broken by it. So we are kinda in a lerch here... I think the best way is just new packages with python3-whatever. kevin
Attachment:
pgpquqzviKhDd.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
