V Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 02:10:52PM -0500, Neal Gompa napsal(a): > Have we made sure that when Red Hat forks Fedora packages for RHEL > that they don't truncate or eliminate the Git history anymore? Because I would > personally be very displeased if my historical attribution went away > because of broken processes like the one used to fork all the Fedora > Linux 34 packages for CentOS Stream 9. > It's not only about loosing attributions. There will be NEVRA discrepancies in RHEL: Different number of commits will mean different release numbers. That will break package interdependencies which requires a specific release number. E.g foo requires bar. Fedora bar-1-2 contains a vital fix for foo. Thus Fedora foo will strengthen the dependency with "Requires: bar >= 1-2". However, after importing to RHEL, bar will become bar-1-1. The dependency from foo will break. Another RHEL problem will be fixes for minor RHEL version. E.g. RHEL 10.0 will contain foo-1-1, RHEL-10.1 updates to foo-1-2, then RHEL-10.0 backports the change, preferably as foo-1-1.el10_0.1. However, the generated rpmautospec schema won't allow it and will produce foo-1-2.el10_0. I foresee RHEL maintainers to revert rpmautospec to manual numbering for minor RHEL updates. None of these issues are Fedora issues. But considering the ecosystems wholistically, the proposed rpmautospec propotion will add a friction. -- Petr
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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
