On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 09:45:21AM -0500, Greg Swift wrote:
>
> Do you have any thread names or search phrases to recommend? I found
> several threads back in 2007, which all appear to be early EPEL.
> Unfortunately, the audience and use of EPEL was much smaller then.
>
Here's one of the most informative posts from a past thread:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2012-May/msg00164.html
thanks.. i remember trying to keep up with that thread initially, but
didn't recall it getting to a discussion about repos.
I see that Kevin has replied to this post as well with some of the
higher
level design considerations as well.
(from that thread:)
A partial list of what we would need to do to add a repo:
* Patch bodhi to know about the new repo, what requirements it would
have. If it would have a updates-testing version and how to promote
to updates.
* Add a koji tag for the builds.
* Modify the fedora git processing scripts to allow branches to be made
for this repo.
* Update mash and such to create the repo(s).
* Process all the packages that would need to be added.
* Add components to bugzilla for the new repo/channels/packages.
If an additional repo is decided to be the way to go, what would it
take to develop a mostly 'complete' list along with a list of existing
howtos or subject matter experts that can be referenced by the poor
soul(s) who volunteer to do the work?
And I'm sure there's other issues... it would not be at all
easy, and I
would prefer to avoid it.
understandably. although at this point I'm wondering a few things:
1: since multiple bits have brought this up and no one has come up
with a better solution, is this the way we need to go?
2: would a single EPEL-supplemental/rolling/fubar meet the needs of
both of these paths?
3: is it possible to do the numbered packages in the same git
repositories without creating a whole separate package path? is it
reasonable?
-greg