On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 09:18:08PM -0500, Carl George wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 2:54 PM Carl George <carl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Typically EPEL inherits policy from Fedora, diverging when necessary. > > Here is the corresponding section of Fedora policy. > > > > "All package dependencies (build-time or runtime, regular, weak or > > otherwise) MUST ALWAYS be satisfiable within the official Fedora > > repositories." > > > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_package_dependencies > > > > We don't consider HA or RS part of the base RHEL distribution > > (referred to in policy as the "Target Base"). However, I don't think Well, for 8 and 9... for 7 we do. ;) > > we should strictly forbid any dependency on HA or RS packages, because > > that would require unnecessary duplication of HA/RS packages in EPEL > > (which is allowed, but shouldn't be required IMO). I suggest a > > compromise that we can make the policy: > > > > "All EPEL package dependencies (build-time or runtime) MUST ALWAYS be > > satisfiable within the Target Base or EPEL itself. Weak package > > dependencies are allowed on packages from additional RHEL channels > > that are not part of the Target Base, such as the HighAvailability > > channel." > > > > -- > > Carl George > > We discussed this a bit further at today's EPEL Steering Committee. > One alternative that was suggested was to just add the HA and RS repos > to the target base list. The initial impact of that would be that > several packages already in EPEL8 would become policy violations and > would have to be retired. Yeah, I guess thats pretty anoying in 8 since we didn't start with them. ;( So, if we did allow weak deps to packages in other non our Base repos, wouldn't that not actually work for the case that started this thread? ie, say I have a foo-plugin package and foo is in a different non epel base rhel channel and I add a Reccomends for it in epel. People who have the channel enabled would be fine but if someone else installed foo-plugin it would just... not work. Also could we tell if deps changed? Say I have foo-plugin in epel Reccommending foo, and RHEL drops foo. None of our 'will it install' or broken deps type checks will know that it is now not working. ;( If we don't add HA and RS to the base epel repos, I guess we could just allow people to build those things they need in epel, but then of course they get to maintain them. ;( Perhaps instead of a strict rule we could just ask everything that has this issue to get an exception? Not an easy case. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
