On 20.05.2007 18:21, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Sun, 20 May 2007, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 20.05.2007 17:36, Dag Wieers wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 May 2007, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>> On 20.05.2007 16:02, Dag Wieers wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 20 May 2007, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>>>> I wrote a quick proposal for repotags in EPEL. If people really want
>>>>> repotags in EPEL please speak up in this thread -- I'd really
like to
>>>>> see that contributors really want repotags before I propose this
>>>>> proposal for voting in a SIG meeting.
>>>>> == Proposal for the use of repotags for EPEL ==
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> == EOF ==
>>>> That's like saying: we do want to look at it objectively, but here
are
>>>> some requirements that make it impossible to implement.
>>> Thanks for your detailed and helpful feedback. I propose this here for
>>> discussion. So if you have a technical solution that could work, but
>>> does not confirm to the points of the proposal? Then please show or
>>> explain it, that we can consider adjusting the proposal before it's
>>> being voted upon. That why I posted it for discussion.
>> Well, in our case the buildsystem takes care of adding the repotag.
> Just out of interest: how?
Rewriting the SPEC file before using. [...]
Well, that or something similar could be done in the scripts that create
the srpm. That would be acceptable (and, btw, not directly "buildsystem"
in Fedora-land).
>> Since
>> it needs to come at the very last there's no problem doing that. And it
>> does not affect anyone maintaining the SPEC files. What's more you can
>> leave it out for the Fedora builds, and add it for the EPEL builds.
> Well, I could live with the buildsys adding it. But I'd prefer not to go
> with special patches, thus I'd would be best if patches that make this
> work get integrated directly into mock.
> But:
>>> Ohh, sorry, I nearly forgot: there is a technical solution that could
>>> work. I outlined it in
>>>
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-April/msg01232.html
>>>
>>> In short: add a %{?repotag} to the end of release in all EPEL spec
>>> files, set that in the EPEL builders (not in the Fedora ones) to
".epel"
>>> and the solution is there. We could start with it tomorrow -- but we
>>> need the Fedora Packaging Committee to agree first, as that's
>>> responsible for stuff like this in Fedora.
>> This solution will never be accepted by Fedora because of practical
>> problems:
>> * it must remain possible to simply copy spec files between Fedora and
>> EPEL branches without modifications
>> * the repotag must be used my all packages
>> Since it affects all Fedora packagers you will get objections from most
>> maintainers, especially because it will not be used for Fedora. The
>> obvious question will be: 'why introduce it in all SPEC files if we don't
>> use it for Fedora ?'.
> Nobody said that we need to use it everywhere in Fedora-only packages.
> But it should be allowed there. That afaics should be acceptable
>
> A special repotag macro has one benefit (and that's why I currently
> think it's the best solution): the spec file could be exchanged easily
> with other repos. Just define the individual repotag and rebuild one
> spec file in different repos (dag, CentOS Extras, EPEL, <private repos>,
> ...).
Well, remember the disttag ? RPMforge was using that and Fedora took the
idea and added a dot in the macro that made it impossible to use it the
way we did. Broke our implementation and made things incompatible :)
No sorry, didn't know that. That was not nice -- we at Fedora could have
simply used a different name for the macro.
If mock can add the disttag, I don't see a need to have it as a
macro.
[...]
disttag is optional in Fedora-land and some people (including me) want
it to stay optional.
Cu
thl