On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 06:24:21AM +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > FWIW, I think the upstream renaming of ansible and ansible-core is something > that we just have to accept. But we have some flexibility in how this is > packaged in Fedora. ...snip... > > The Change proposal is not very clear in this regard… Please correct me > if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that there's a giant SRPM which > produces a giant 'ansible' binary package. In addition there's a second > small SRPM which produces the 'ansible-core' binary package. Right: https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/9b/ed/5a6149a7e0314bfb99fd496781f84a96328e0eb0a85f5cb845c25fcb909a/ansible-4.7.0.tar.gz (36MB) https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/be/1a/f40e97f4c400eec75813bc492f1d6226cd413bf03f88d5f00070a1e699a3/ansible-core-2.11.6.tar.gz (7MB) > When I'm reading Richard's proposal, I understand it as a giant SRPM > package + ~95 binary packages. In your answer, you are clearly discussing > ~95 SRPM packages with ~95 binary packages. > > I agree that ~95 separate *source* packages is not a good approach: > - the obvious reason is the packaging overhead you mention > - but a more subtle reason is that upstream will test those 95 packages > in the versions listed in 'ansible' pypi package, so we want them in > the exact versions specified in the 'ansible' pypi package, and not > in the latest version each of those upstreams may have released. Right. > But the approach with 1 SRPM and many *binary* packages seems pretty > attractive: > - it will be possible to install specific subset of the collection > as rpm packages. [Nico, does that answer you complaint about installation > size?] Only if the seperately packaged collections are named differently, which is another level of confusion I don't think we want. ie, think if ansible 5.0 ships with ansible-collection-community-mysql version 2.3.1 and fedora has a seperately packaged ansible-collection-community-mysql 2.5.0. Users would get the updated version and not match the tested with ansible 5.0 version. > To some extent this will match the split of *binary* packages of texlive. > is very useful when one knows the few specific subpackages that > one needs through the 'tex(foo.sty)' and 'tex(bar.tfm)' virtual provides. > > - it is still possible to have an 'ansible' metapackage that pulls in > those binary packages or some subset. It would need to pull in all those binary packages of exactly those versions in order to match upstream, but it couldn't where collections overlap seperately provided ones of different versions (unless named differently). kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
