On 08/01/2017 10:41 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > One of things I've invested some time towards over the years is cutting > down on the amount of %if spaghetti needed to share spec files between > Fedora and EPEL. Earlier in the discussion about the mass python-X -> > python2-X move I volunteered to maintain a number of "stub packages" in > EPEL which have the sole purpose of letting packagers uniformly have > dependencies on python2-X. A couple of people told me they thought I > was being facetious, so I wanted to try again and assure everyone that I > was indeed serious. > > Here's a rough, in-progress draft: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/EPELPythonStubPackages > > Basically: create some EPEL-specific python2-X packages that do nothing > besides depend on the base RHEL python-X packages. > > If anyone can think of a reason why this would be problematic, please > let me know. I'm especially concerned about situations where the > existence of these packages could cause problems for RHEL. I've tried > to be careful about detailing how version and release would be > maintained and how the dependencies will be versioned so that RHEL can > be updated without the EPEL package being immediately updated to match. A few comments: "Since in RHEL it's possible for one package to have many different versions in various channels, it makes sense to try to stick with the lowest version that's in any channel. In any case, EPEL is limited in what channels it supports. " I don't think we have any way to find out the version of a package in all channels. At least I don't know of such a way. So, I think we should concern ourselves with only the channels that EPEL says it will try and not conflict with. Note that there is a case here if rhel and epel have a source package with the same name, the epel one will be used in all buildroots no matter what the versions. So, yeah, we would need to make sure and retire the epel package as soon as rhel started providing a source package with the same name. If they are still different source packages then the newest one would win. I'm in favor... lets give it a try with some of the common ones. :) kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
