On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Matthew Miller > <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:27:45PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: >>> > Yes, THIS. Our current model does not really allow us to express this >>> > at all -- there's "orphaned", but that's not user-visible. >>> Our current model actually could express this though. We could put >>> the weakly maintained packages in COPRs, and editions that wish to >>> include them can do so in their default repos. There is also the >>> previous idea of the curated COPR playground. >>> We have the tools, we just need to use them. >> >> One problem is that weakly maintained packages are often dependencies >> and libraries. They're weakly maintained because the person packaging >> them never really cared about them for their own sake, only for some >> other application which needs them. That application may be strongly >> maintained, but the various deps only updated when some issue affects >> that app. I guess the whole thing could go into a COPR in this kind of >> case, but I'm not sure that's quite right. >> >> > > The fundamental problem with this in COPR is that COPR doesn't know > how to do automatic rebuilds based on changes in the repos it uses. > For example, with my OBS projects, when the Rawhide repodata is > updated, OBS automatically properly bumps the Release and rebuilds the > package so that it works properly with whatever changed in the > repositories. COPR lacks this capability, but it is needed for > something like that to work. Koji doesn't do this either, yet we seem to get by. I'm not sure I follow why auto-rebuild is a requirement versus a (very) nice to have. josh -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
