On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 09:04 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Use a repotag for EPEL4 and EPEL5 like this: add a "%define
repotag foo"
in the buildsys, where foo expands to ".epel4" in EPEL4 and ".epel5"
on
EPEL5; the repotag macro doesn't get defined in Fedora builders and thus
nothing will change when building a package for Fedora, even if it has a
%{?repotag} in %{release}.
Just a tiny detail, picking a random EPEL package:
denyhosts-2.6-4.el5.noarch.rpm
then it would/could become:
denyhosts-2.6-4.el5.epel5.noarch.rpm
which I think is redundant, repotag should expand to "epel" only for all
versions, so we would have:
denyhosts-2.6-4.el5.epel.noarch.rpm
Then enforce the use of "%{?repotag}" at the end of
%{release} for all
packages in EPEL. To make that effective used in the repo it requires a
rebuild of all packages that are in EPEL already. Not nice and a bit of
work, but for the sake of making people happy let's just do it. The
added "%{?repotag}" in the release field must be allowed in Fedora spec
files, too, so people can easily copy spec files from Fedora to EPEL and
vice versa without having to modify them.
Sounds good. The rebuild could happen over a period of time, of course.
Would it be possible to use the already existing %{?dist} distag and
just change the way it is expanded in EPEL alone? That would actually
avoid changing the spec file at all. I don't know if this might be a
technical no-no for some reason in Fedora's build system.
Hmmm, I seem to remember something about incremental releases being set
by a number _after_ the distag... that might make this option a no-go
(AFAIK third party repos - including mine - have used disttag as the
_last_ component of release, so, for example in my case disttag expands
to .fcx.ccrma).
By Fedora 8 or Fedora 9 enhance the tools (rpm, yum, ...) to display
a
the %{vendor} field in case of problems (for all packages that are
involved) and in popular queries. Then drop the repotag in EPEL6 and
later again, as it shouldn't be that much needed anymore
---
Did I miss anything?
Sounds good to me. I like Jeff's suggestion (further down in the thread)
to eventually use the signature of the package to id the distro:
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 13:22 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
Even the Vendor tag isn't authoritative really. The only way we
can
generally solve this currently this is to rely on the actually package
signatures and relate those back to signing key ID strings (until
packages start using a more generalized cert istead of gpg sigs). And
there doesn't appear to be any way to do that with even an rpm
commandline argument with the rpm in fedora currently. "Who signed
this package" is not a question that rpm can reasonably answer as far
as I can tell. I wouldn't characterize an alpha-numeric key ID in the
-qi output as user-friendly. I'd love to be able to ask that question
and get information like the output of rpm -q --qf "%{SUMMARY}\n"
gpg-pubkey-1ac70ce6-41bebeef.
Looks to me like the right technical solution. Reliable and automatic
(does not depend on the packager to conform to a standard). Obviously
its usefulness depends on how rpm & friends are changed to support it in
a "transparent" way.
-- Fernando