On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 3:05 PM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 10/22/20 2:51 PM, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > Hi, Vit. > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 2:37 PM Vít Ondruch<vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I was asking for ELN branch for ages and it was always denied and there > >> you have it [1]. So what is the current stance on this topic? > > You were asking for a branch to overcome the issue with building a > > package in ELN. And we have a suggestion for the alternative solution > > which wouldn't require maintaining a separate eln branch forever. > > > > For gcc we are using a temporary branch for the development of a new > > feature in Fedora. > > I would have named it "gcc11" branch rather than "eln", but it is a > > bikeshedding exercise. > > This is not about naming / bikeshedding. Whatever you call it, this is a "branch > used exclusively to build in ELN". Vít wanted this, I wanted this and many other > Fedora/RHEL packagers wanted this. Yet you argued so passionately against it. > For example you said: > > > I think that not having eln-branch is very important part of the > > concept as we don't want to fork Fedora. > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/WRJNM7I5TFQ5TEBOUKKH757K5ME3I47F/ > > But there were countless other arguments against having such branches. Have the > situation changed? Can other packages have eln branches as well? No, the situation has not changed. I'll reiterate: We don't want to fork packages from the Fedora Rawhide. We don't want to provide eln-branch as an option to overcome build failures in ELN. ELN's purpose is to provide motivation and tooling for downstream developers to work on Fedora, not to share parts of Fedora infrastructure for downstream developers to do their downstream work. We expect downstream to have its own infrastructure and process for branched packages. And we do have it in RHEL. If you want to discuss how exactly RHEL downstream does it, I can provide more information. But I consider it to be offtopic in this mailing list, or at least in this thread. At the same time, we would like to use ELN as an experimental playground for features, when it makes sense, when it is helpful for Fedora and when these additional features don't contradict the primary purpose of the ELN buildroot. We consider the update to GCC11 to be one of such features. It is not a fork of the Rawhide into a downstream branch, it is a future Fedora feature. It is also not the only one, which we can handle through ELN. We were considering the update of the baseline of the x86 cpu's to be such a feature, but then it was discarded. The other example would be the Default Module Streams setup. If you would like to propose another Fedora feature, and you would like to work together with the ELN SIG on it - please file a ticket in the ELN tracker [1]. We are open to the ideas, and we may consider options, including branching, to make it work. [1] https://github.com/fedora-eln/eln/issues > -- > Miro Hrončok > -- > Phone: +420777974800 > IRC: mhroncok > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- Aleksandra Fedorova bookwar _______________________________________________ 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
