On 11/17/18 4:09 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote: > I'm afraid I'm still very unfamiliar with modules, but it does seem like > this will be very central to how we deliver packages to EPEL-8. My > initial questions are: Yeah, I don't know them as well as I can, but can take a stab at answering based on what I know. ;) And yes, I agree modules will be key for epel8. > > - Can we "simply" extend the platform for current modules to cover > RHEL-8? That way one could for example deliver octave 4.4 for both > Fedora and EPEL-8 at the same time. The main issue that I see is > preventing packages that already exist in RHEL-8 from making it in. Yes, we hopefully can do that. However, they might need some adjustment for epel8 differences. The 'existing rhel8 packages' brings up a good point: Do we want to care about that in epel8 modules? If we replace something thats in a module, perhaps thats expected and ok, and just avoid replacing base packages? > - How do we build against the RHEL-8 modules? I see that RHEL-8 has two > perl and two php module streams: > > perl 5.24 minimal, default > perl 5.26 [d] minimal, default [d] > php 7.1 devel, minimal, default [d] > php 7.2 [d] devel, minimal, default [d] > > presumably if I want to builld say perl-Config-Simple for EPEL-8 we'll > need/want to build it for both module streams? How does one go about > attaching that package to the RHEL-8 module? Or will we need separate > EPEL versions of the modules? If you are building a non modular package, right now you cannot build against modular packages at all. This is what the 'ursa-major' app that releng/fesco are discussing enabling will allow for. Until thats setup, non modular builds can't use any modules. If you are building a modular package, you specify in the module yaml file exactly what modules you are building against and what version. > - Do we need to distinguish between EPEL packages that will be treated > much like BaseOS packages in RHEL (very long lived and stable), and ones > that are like the AppStream (shorter lifetimes)? Do we just want to > treat everything like AppStream packages? > https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/8-beta/html/using_application_stream/using-appstream_using-appstream I'd say everything like appstream. > > > Some of what I wrote just might not make sense due to my limited > understanding of modules. I could also be wrong above, so hopefully if so someone will correct me. 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
