On 12/11/20 7:42 PM, Troy Dawson wrote:
Our current solution for the missing RHEL8 devel packages is going away.
And let's be honest, it was only about 50% successful. We needed
something else anyway.
Here is my proposal for a new solution.
Be warned, this proposal has words like module, and grobisplitter.
But I think it will turn out good in the end.
It's just a proposal. Some things might be impossible, some might
just be hard. But, in my head it works.
Example: qgpgme-devel is missing. It is a subpackage of gpgme
1 - Create a epel8 module called qgpgme-devel(A)
1a - Everything is blocked by the module, except the package qgpgme-devel
2 - In the fedora dist-git repo for gpgme, create a branch called
epel8-missing-devel(B)
2a - If other packages are needed to build gpgme in EPEL8, create the
same named branch in their dist-git repos.
3 - Sync the centos-git branches to the fedora epel8-missing-devel
branches, including sources to the fedora lookaside. (C)
4 - Change %{dist} in the spec files to .el8
5 - Build the module
6 - Process the module through the usual bodhi process, and thus EPEL
end users can use qgpgme-devel, as an EPEL module.
7 - Configure grobisplitter so that the contents of the module (which
is just qgpgme-devel) can be squashed and used as a normal rpm in
epel8 buildroot.
8 - Via a script, check centos-git branch of gpgme to see if it has
been updated. If it has been updated, do steps 3 through 6.
Notes:
(A) - Do not name the module the same as the original source package.
This will confuse users of the original package.
(B) - This branch name is debatable, but it should be consistent so
updates can be scripted.
(C) - Once the centos and fedora dist-git branches are on the same
place, this will be easier, but is still needed.
(D) - Yes, that's right. Hard code %{dist}
At the end a package called qgpgme-devel will be built in EPEL and available in
the EPEL buildroot despite the fact that there is a qgpgme-devel package in RHEL
buildroot.
Since the only reason we don't allow this already is policy, why don't we amend
the policy instead to allow adding qgpgme-devel to EPEL if it's in RHEL
buildroot? No modules, no grobisplitter, just plain simple spec file that only
produces qgpgme-devel (and deletes or %excludes the rest). IMHO that's something
EPEL packagers are more likely to understand (and hence are more OK to maintain).
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
_______________________________________________
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
