#34: EPEL SRPM naming clarification
-----------------------------+----------------------------
Reporter: aviso | Owner: epel-wranglers
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone:
Component: Policy problem | Version:
Resolution: | Keywords:
-----------------------------+----------------------------
Comment (by aviso):
Ausil, thanks. That's very useful. It would appear someone at some point
made an assumption SRPM names would be a valid unique identifier. I can
understand why, but it seems rather arbitrary, which is why, as you said,
the system is fragile. If the purpose of that script is to merge binary
repos, why would you need to deconflict if there was no conflict in the
provides? It seems like a step is missing.
> Everything is done in dist-git, pkgdb, koji etc for a reason, that being
namely auditability and accontability.
I have no doubt, but the whole business we're in, computers, serves the
purpose of reducing human work. If humans have to do anything, there is
room for improvement.
Not only do we have too much human work required, it's administrative
rather than technical, the impact is high for the end user, and it's only
getting worse as the demand for Python 3 increases.
So, what would we recommend, a modification to the merge script to filter
by provides first, a system to alias package names in pkgdb, or something
else?
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/epel/ticket/34#comment:7>
EPEL <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL>
Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux
_______________________________________________
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
