On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:15:19 -0500 John.Florian@xxxxxxxx wrote: > > From: Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> > > I think it might be best to look at rules/guidelines we want to have > > first, keeping them as high level above implementation details as we > > can at this point. > > I think another requirement will be that the formulas are pegged to a > specific Fedora release. While there may not need to be much in the > way of differences from release to release, it does happen. I know I > have to have lots of conditional handling in my puppet manifests > where I'm covering back to at least Fedora 14. An easy case to > imagine is the mysql => mariadb transition that appears to be > possibly be underway. A real life example (that's been wholly unfun) > is a postfix + amavisd-new + clamav + spamassassin mail stack. There > has been major shifts in the packaging and integration requirements. Sure, if we are going with git repo per formula (as it seems folks seem to like so far), we could do a branch per target... > > These changes may all be improvements, but I think any such formula > arrangement is going to need to cope with them. Maybe these too can > have conditions to cover such changes rather than having numerous > forks. If conditioned, then you might also want to nail down the > policy of supporting only those Fedoras not at EoL. I agree. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ formulas-devel mailing list formulas-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/formulas-devel
