On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 03:22:03PM +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> We've already migrated source RPM version control systems
twice (from
Just a small correction here, there was no migration when we put pagure on the
top of dist-git. Repos didn't move nor the tooling that packagers are using.
Okay, fair -- but if we lump that together with the pkgdb deprecation,
tooling _did_ change.
> > 12.
> > As anyone, I want the URI to the archive (tar.xz, tar.bz2, etc)
> > corresponding to various code states (commit/tag/release/forkā¦) to be
> > regular and stable (ideally, identical to the Pagure URIs to avoid
> > reimplementing existing automation) so that I can point to point-in-time
> > snapshots of the repository.
>
> This feature seems key for possibly moving to or adding a "source git"
> approach.
The source git idea, as I understand it, is about using the exploded git repo
and generate a tarball locally, so not relying on the forge hosting the repo.
We need to have some way to guarantee that a given reference to source
control in which the "exploded" repo lives is always the same thing and
can't be changed underneath us.
> And this too is something that we were *planning* to get with
Pagure but
> which (unless something has changed) we aren't actually at yet. (You
> need to be an approved packager already in order to do this.)
That is something we could get from pagure if we had made a migration from
how dist-git has been originally set-up with an account per packager
instead of the one account for all that all forges use these days
(including pagure.io). But we didn't want to impact the packagers' work
and thus never migrated away from this old setup and puts us in a corner
for this.
Yes, I'm not blaming :)
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader