On 22 January 2018 at 02:12, R P Herrold <herrold@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[..]
>> If it is common in case of EL7/EL6 EPEL packages consumers it is perfect
>> reason to not bother EPEL on master branch because Fedora has noting out
>> from such end users and keeping all EL6/EL7 adjustments are only slowing
>> down Fedora development by making specs less readable.
>
> Tomasz
>
> Do you have statistics about the number of packages
> 'migrating' from Fedoraproject to RHEL, vs the number of EPEL
> packages doing the same
In case RHEL .. nope.
I've already been thinking about this however as I have no access to
devel RHEL source I cannot do this.
In case of EPEL packages as I already wrote flow of new/updated
packages to EPEL is minute compare to Fedora in recent months.
EPEL/EL7 has ~6.5k src.rpm were Fedora ~20k. Using this as reference
pints would be possible to expect that EPEL/EL7 flow should be around
1/4 of Fedora, but it is not like this.
EPEL/EL7 flow is way lower.
I can only guess that generally as RH is doing major update every few
years watching constantly on Fedora for RH people does not make to
much sense for them.
Best would be first hand some opinion someone from RH.
Still I hope that this tread will be read by someone from RH ..
> It is all well and good to have a fast moving playground
> environment, but some (and particularly, I) actually use both
> as sources for solving needs of paying customers
Problem only is that as Fedora is on the constant move but RH doesn't.
Main RH goal is delivery solid distro, then security fixes and some
other critical fixes. Only occasionally they are updating some set of
packages.
Just had a look on CentOS updates and I've took zsh src.rpm.
Spec from this package does not look at all like Fedora.
Last Fedora entry in %changelog is from 2013.
>From this point in Fedora has been made about 30 changes than RH has
only 3 and there have not been copied from Fedora.
I've checked next few packages and situation looks the same.
So looks like RH already few years ago stopped using Fedora as set of
reference packages.
> and EPEL, for me, is the more fruitful one from which to build
> solutions on top of CentOS (and not Fedora's more short lived,
> properly 'not concerned' about long term supportability
> offerings)
In EPEL/EL7 is 6551 source packages. After remove %{rhel} <5 and
convert this to %{el6}/%{el7} it will be possible more precise to say
how many packages rally has for example el7 %ifings.
Compare those two numbers may deliver new data about EPEL health.
I would be not surprised if number of src.rpm packages will be
significantly greater than %{el7} %ifings which will be some kind of
sign that EPEL health on top of Fedora packages is not so good as many
people are thinking.
What I'm worry it is that this supportability is only kind of fata
morgana/ilution and RH effectively spitted long time ago from Fedora
without telling about this to Fedora developers.
More and more small evidences says me that it may be truth.
In other case it would be possible to see as well kind of RH feedback
about some crucial Fedora changes.
Simple I cannot find traces of such discussions (however maybe I'm
looking in wrong place).
Other fact which may cut this knot is volume EPEL related bugs/issues
reported over bugzilla.
Nevertheless I think that 2 out of my 8 points are ready to PRs.
As it will take some time to raise->approve->finish those changes
still is a lot of time to colect more facts and make some decisions
about other 6 points.
PS. If you have any propositions to do some analyse as I'm every day
syncing not only Fedora but few other distros packages (+all Fedora
git repos and Debian sources as well) it is easier for me to execute
some oneliner to produce some numbers.
kloczek
--
Tomasz Kłoczko | LinkedIn: http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
