On 10/08/2013 09:59 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 8.10.2013 09:36, Jan Kaluža napsal(a):
On 10/08/2013 07:18 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 7.10.2013 22:24, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a):
* Instead we could build for the main Fedora Repo. If we do this, the
spec
file, git repo name, and srpm package name all need to match. That
means
we'd have a separate git-level package for each package+scl
combination.
So if we had scl-php5.6 and we needed a php and php-gettext package
for it
we'd need separate git-level packages named scl-php5.6-php and
scl-php5.6-php-gettext.
This goes exactly against the basic premise on which SCL were build and
that is: "The SCL package must be buildable from the very same .spec
file into regular package as well as SCL package.".
I'm not following SCL in Fedora, but even the first way suggested by
Toshio is against this basic premise. When you have another .spec file
in extra branch, it's not the "very same .spec file"
Different branch does not mean the files are different. It is just
different branch. You can merge, cherry-pick, etc.
Why do we want to have two branches with the same spec file in it? And
if it's not intended to be the same, we have basically two different
collections with the same name (and we are not building from "the very
same spec file" in this case).
and I actually don't see any reason why SCL spec file should be
buildable as non-SCL package (unless we decide to build them from
"very same branch" - meaning that you would have single .spec file in
"f19" branch and build it twice - once as SCL and once as normal
package). I don't see use-case for this.
There is use case. You have Ruby 1.8.7 in RHEL and you want to build
Ruby 1.9.3 into EPEL SCL. Ruby 1.9.3 is already available in F18, so the
only thing you have to do is rebuild it in the proper build root,
without any change.
Hm, that presumes there will be software collections which won't be
build in Fedora (so they won't have Fedora SCL branch), but still have
SCL code in their spec files. If that's valid use-case, then yes.
Otherwise you could just rebuild Ruby from 1.9.3 from SCL branch.
Anyway, the problem here is that I think it's cleaner to have two
different spec files in some cases (with and without SCL) then having
single package with "%if 0%{?scl:1}" everywhere. You have different
opinion probably and that's OK. I've just wanted to share my view of
this problem :).
I agree it could be easier to maintain the packages this way, but for
bigger packages like php it's just lot of extra conditionals which
makes the maintenance harder.
Yes, I agree.
If I'm right, this basic premise is SHOULD (not MUST) in current
guidelines.
Not sure what is in current guidelines proposal and why, the basic
premise stays. May be somebody just forgotten history and the reasons.
Vít
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
Jan Kaluza
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
