Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 2019-09-26 20:35, Jeremy Cline wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 09:08:16AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2019-09-26 at 15:46 +0000, Jeremy Cline wrote:
Ah right, that makes a lot of sense.

I can imagine automatically detecting the new upstream release, building
that, and presenting the packager with a easy-to-review PR that you just
click "merge" on instead of pointing the specfile at a new tarball.
This already basically happens, at least for things that are hooked up
to anitya:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751432
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring

You get a bug report with a patch attached, and it runs a scratch
build. This is great for simple release bumps, but there's still all
sorts of cases where it's not enough or you're just doing something
else.
I do have a little[0] experience with anitya, but it's not nearly as
hooked up as it could be and honestly Libraries.io generally does
better for tracking upstreams, it just lacks the mapping to downstreams.
Maybe we could add that and use it, or continue with anitya.

What I'd really like to see is a lot more "cleverness" from it regarding
versions and automatic backporting to various Fedora releases based on
semantic versioning. Also there's still manual steps you need to do as a
maintainer like downloading and then uploading the tarball.
As a current maintainer I thought about this one and I have already work in progress [0] that adds ability to create PR in dist-git directly using packit. With Fedora CI in place, this will be automatically tested. To get this work I'm missing mostly time to do it and new version of Pagure to be deployed.

Anitya still needs plenty of love, but right now Fedora Infra has priorities elsewhere. There is still possibility to use libraries.io instead of Anitya, but there are some issues: - lack of downstream mapping (this could be easily solved by some database with only downstream mapping) - lack of custom project additions (libraries.io can only watch projects in sources they have already implemented)

Michal

[0] - https://github.com/fedora-infra/the-new-hotness/pull/235

[0] https://github.com/release-monitoring/anitya/graphs/contributors
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to 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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to 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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux