Re: Requirements for SRPM names

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

That doesn't make sense. Builds are done by pulling in base, epel, and
buildroot repositories into a generated mock config and executed (i.e.
passed to mock to build the SRPM and then the RPMs). No part of mock
would have a problem here. Therefore, there is no reason for the
absurdity of having python3-* SRPMs.

Sure, Koji operates on SRPMs, but Fedora Koji does not build RHEL or
CentOS. So this particular problem doesn't exist from that perspective
either. Content from RHEL/CentOS essentially is a black box to Koji.

-- 
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!
_______________________________________________
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora News]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [SSH]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora QA]     [Fedora Triage]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Apps]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Maemo Users]     [Asterisk PBX]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Fedora Universal Network Connector]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux