On 10/07/2013 10:24 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
I had a chance to talk with dgilmore last week about building SCLs. From
the conversation it seems that it will probably be harder to build SCLs in
Fedora than it is inside of RH. Here's the summary:
There's two models that we can choose from:
* Building to separate targets per scl. For that model you can have
a separate branch per scl. This is more or less the style that's being
used inside of RH. However, in Fedora land this would mean that we need
to have seperate yum repos per scl, seperate bodhi updates targets, and some
way to add repo files to systems for each scl.
RHSCL has only one repo for more than one scls. Why would we need more
repos? Do you mean we would need one repo for Fedora and one for scls
because technical issues with creating one repo above all of those?
- Note: there may be additional work as well. dgilmore asked whether the
SCL model is to build once for the oldest supported OS release and then
that SCL build will run on any newer OS release. If that's not the case (I
didn't think it was but confirmation would be nice) then you'd need to
have separate yum/bodhi/etc for every $SCL-$OSRelease combination.
It depends what will be the workflow. We spoke about accepting the new
scl by FESCo as a Change. In this case it would be possible to build
only in the latest Fedora.
We didn't speak about build once and run on more Fedoras. It did work in
some cases, but if packages depend on something, which changed a lot
it's safer to rebuild the whole scl stack.
* 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.
It doesn't have to match, only during the import phase. The srpm has
name without the prefix, so the build does work. I'm not sure how
similar are our infrastructures, but I guess this will be the same
issue. Scl was designed to work with it.
dgilmore did say he'd like to test if there might be a way to separate
targets building to the same tag. If he could figure out a way to do that
it might allow us to have the packages stored in separate branches but build
them for the same yum repositories (which might allow us to skip the
separate bodhi targets as well). He'd need time to get an infrastructure
setup to test this, though, so it would take a good deal of time (for
instance if we're delaying F21 in order to do releng work, this might be
a project for that time.)
After talking with him, my recommendation would be to have separate
packages. That allows us to get scls built in Fedora sooner. Otherwise we
won't be able to do anything with them until the fedora.next Outer Rings
become viable. I'm not anticipating that we'd have many SCLs to begin with
so we'd hopefully be able to migrate those SCLs that we build at first into
whatever form things take in the future.
-Toshio
Both solution, branches or new packages, has their pros and cons. I
guess we don't want to decide for one option, because there might be
unclear technical details in the other.
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
Marcela
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
