On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 09:29:00AM -0000, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 2:00 PM Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> Sure, I think it makes sense for improvements to
> container/flatpak/module packaging to fall under the scope of this
> objective as well!
>
> I admit that Modularity is part of my motivation for filing this
> objective-- I'd like to make sure we keep the packager experience in
> mind as the modularity rollout continues. My worry with modularity
> (which I've expressed before on the devel list) has been that the
> added overhead of creating and maintaining a module will end up
> detracting from the other benefits of being able to modularize
> stuff... so it would be nice to help make sure that doesn't happen!
>
>
> This is an interesting idea! My initial thought was that the majority
> of packages probably don't *need* something like this, as they don't
> differ much, if at all, from upstream. But I think even for those
> packages, being able to browse a package's sources through a git
> repository via Pagure rather than having to fetch and unpack the
> tarballs would be a major improvement. So yes, I think trying out
> source-git would be something that could fall under the scope of this
> objective.
>
> Cheers,
> Ben Rosser
Ben, thank you for putting this proposal together! It's definitely the step to the
right direction.
I'm one of the people behind source-git. At the moment we are in a phase where we are
trying to figure out our goals and milestones. Our team will get together and make a plan
around devconf. We'll then announce it to Fedora to get the discussion going (feedback
is very important). The topics we are talking about are:
* Packaging automation (as Dennis pointed out -- automate tedious tasks)
* Rawhide gating and increasing its stability
* On-demand side tags (what Richard mentioned)
From my understanding on the current plan for rawhide gating, it involves
on-demand side-tags for multi-package update in rawhide.
So that's two items in one :)
Pierre