Network setup of builders

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at
Thu Jun 27 17:17:00 UTC 2013

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:58:09AM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> >The whole point of this is to allow steaming pile of crap packages to
> >be built, if people so choose.
> >
> >COPRs exists b/c the packaging policies of various bodies are too
> >strict and are a barrier to entry. The Powers-That-Be wanted a place
> >where people could build whatever package they wanted to build and not
> >be hampered by bundling or bad build processes or anything.
> Really? That differ from my expectations. I do not want to encourage
> people to build crap (by allowing them to).
> Maybe it is time to recap what are the primary target audience of
> Copr. At least how I feel it, because I never seen that written or
> discussed:
> 1) various upstream projects (e.g OpenShift, Katello, etc. - but even
> small one man projects), which want to build theirs nightlies in
> reproducible manner.

> 2) projects which consist of lot of packages and it would take long
> time for them to go through Package Review process (either because it
> is simply too much packages or because they are e.g. bundling
> libraries and it takes some time to fix the code to follow Fedora
> guideliness) and they want to offer their releases right now.

+1 -- note that this is a subset of the noted "streaming pile of crap
packages" :-)

> 3) Projects which want to offer release for different platform than
> Fedora/EPEL. E.g. Suse, but I would count here even Software
> Collections, Secondary Architectures.

-1  Software Collections perhaps, but the other uses are out of scope.  Secondary
arches, for instance, require copr-be hardware for the arch to be available.

> 4) Repos which should be private for some reasons (embargoed builds
> which should be tested)
+0 -- I think this is out of scope but I suppose the scope could be expanded
to encompas it.  I'm a little leery of it though.... Part of what makes the
legal ramifications of copr work is that we're crowdsourcing the monitoring
of what's being hosted in coprs.  Having private repos eliminates that

> Do I perceive it correctly? Feel free to correct me or add what I'm missing.
Just my thoughts on what the scope is.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the copr-devel mailing list