It seems to be worse than that. When I tried around 2 weeks ago,
building a version in epel8-playground blocked building the same version
in epel8.
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8925
I did similar builds earlier and didn't have the problem.
I have packages.cfg that targets epel8 in the epel8 git branch and
epel8-playground in the epel8-playground branch and haven't touched
them.
Dave
On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 01:57:13PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> On 11/3/19 12:47 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 08:06:07AM -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
> > > For KDE, I built all the packages in epel8-playground. At the time,
> > > it seemed like the right thing to do. (Whether it was or not is
> > > another discussion). I also built several packages in playground that
> > > were not part of KDE, but were build and runtime dependencies.
> > >
> > > Those non-KDE packages, I have been trying to get built on regular
> > > epel8 by their normal maintainers. Or building myself if the normal
> > > maintainer don't want to support epel8.
> > >
> > > Question: What do I do about those package currently in -playground,
> > > that just got built in regular epel8?
> > > The versions may, or may not, be the same.
> > >
> > > A related question, but not necessarily for this set of packages.
> > > What is our plan in a year or two, if a package clearly is maintained
> > > in epel8, but abandoned in epel8-playground?
> >
> > Right, so this is what Kanarip was talking about the other day on IRC.
> >
> > Consider the case:
> >
> > - I have foo-1.0-1 in epel8 and epel8-playground
> > - I want to play with foo-2.0 in playground, so I tweak packages.cfg and
> > build it in playground.
> > - Later I decide its stable so I build foo-2.0-1 in epel8.
> > - A update comes out to 2.1, so I build foo-2.1-1 in epel8, but I didn't
> > put the packages.cfg back and the version in epel8-playground is now
> > foo-2.0-1 still.
> > - I later try and build bar-2.0 in epel8-playground, and it builds
> > against foo-2.0-1 instead of foo-2.1
> >
> > I guess the expectation is that the maintainer should put the
> > packages.cfg back in place when merging back to epel8, but I could see
> > this getting forgotten.
> >
> > So, perhaps the best way forward here is some reporting?
> >
> > ie, check upgrade path between all epel8 and epel8-playground packages.
> > The playgound ones should always upgrade the epel8 one.
> >
> > kevin
>
> I guess I don't see why anyone needs to muck with packages.cfg. If you want
> to build something for epel8-playground, just build it from the
> epel8-playground branch.
>
_______________________________________________
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
