On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 09:57:23PM +0300, Axilleas Pipinellis wrote: > Dear infra team and others that this mail may concern, > > As many of you know (I hope :p), one of this year's GSoC projects, is > to package GitLab and all its dependencies for Fedora and later for > EPEL. There have been at least 3 discussion threads about this since > March [0][1][2][3]. > > I have been in contact with GitLab's core team and we talked about how > we could all work together to make this happen and how GitLab could be > eventually deployed in fedorahosted as an alternative git service. For > the time being there are 2 major show-stoppers: > > 1) GitLab uses some forked gems. > > These are the forked gems by GitLab which add some extra functionality > or fix some bugs of the original gem: > > Upstream | GitLab > ------------------------------------- > grit | gitlab-grit > grack | gitlab-grack > gollum-lib | gitlab-gollum-lib > omniauth-ldap | gitlab_omniauth-ldap > pygments.rb | gitlab-pygments.rb > ------------------------------------- > > Vit Ondruch, my mentor, pointed me in these FESCO [4] and FPC [5] > tickets, which pretty much conclude that: > > "FESCo is fine with forks as long as they are parallel installable and > don't interfere with each other." > > and > > "The FPC does not see a need for additional guidelines relating to > forks at this time, they should be treated like any other package." > > I also raised this issue in #fedora-devel today and they told me the > same thing FESCo concluded. > > I think GitLab's forks don't abide by FESCo's verdict, as both original > and forked gem are called with the same library, eg. require 'grit', so > there is no distinction between them. > > I am cc'ing Sytse Sijbrandij from GitLab's core team to talk about what > changes could be made in order for the forks to get accepted. > You are correct. These are bundled libraries, not forks. And not just because of the same name... Forking is a bad idea unless upstreams are unable to work together. So if there's something like a bugfix that's needed, we (The Fedora Packaging Committee) would want to know why the change hasn't gone into the other package (ie: grit) as the bugfix would presumably hekp out other consumers of grit as well. The idea is to minimize maintainance burdens long-term. if we have five separate packages which contain slightly different versions of the same code, it takes much more manpower to maintain and fix each one than if we had a single package to deal with. just noting this to be sure people don't start abusing the concept of "forks" to mean something that FPC does not intend. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgp2WBAyi2qyh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
