Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

Dne 23. 01. 24 v 8:58 Mattia Verga via devel napsal(a): Il 22/01/24 19:07, Stephen Gallagher ha scritto: tl;dr: Buildroot overrides should be restricted to releng members and packagers should use on-demand side-tags instead. I'm fully in agreement with such proposal. Do note however that

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

Il 22/01/24 19:07, Stephen Gallagher ha scritto: > tl;dr: Buildroot overrides should be restricted to releng members and > packagers should use on-demand side-tags instead. > > I'm fully in agreement with such proposal. Do note however that there's currently no way to restrict BRO usage in Bodhi,

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

Il 22/01/24 19:39, blinxen ha scritto: > > I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that > are not covered by side tags > > One use case that I sometimes encounter is requiring a newer version for > a dependency, > that is submitted to Bodhi with a side-tag. Since the

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

On 22. 01. 24 20:20, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 2:11 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: In the meantime, if we otherwise disabled free-access buildroot overrides, this would definitely be grounds for granting an exception. How would that work? Would I ask FESCo every time I need to

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

* Stephen Gallagher: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 1:55 PM Florian Weimer wrote: >> >> * Stephen Gallagher: >> >> > I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that >> > are not covered by side tags. If you know of any, please speak up. >> >> The overrides are more discoverable:

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 2:11 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 22. 01. 24 20:04, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 1:55 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > >> > >> On 22. 01. 24 19:07, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > >>> I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that > >>>

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

On 22. 01. 24 20:04, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 1:55 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: On 22. 01. 24 19:07, Stephen Gallagher wrote: I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that are not covered by side tags. If you know of any, please speak up. Every time

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 07:39:52PM +0100, blinxen wrote: > > I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that are > not covered by side tags > > One use case that I sometimes encounter is requiring a newer version for a > dependency, > that is submitted to Bodhi with a

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

On Mon Jan 22, 2024 at 13:07 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > tl;dr: Buildroot overrides should be restricted to releng members and > packagers should use on-demand side-tags instead. Previous discussion from December 2022:

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 1:55 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 22. 01. 24 19:07, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that > > are not covered by side tags. If you know of any, please speak up. > > Every time somebody asks this, I say: Pull

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 1:55 PM Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Stephen Gallagher: > > > I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that > > are not covered by side tags. If you know of any, please speak up. > > The overrides are more discoverable: > >

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 1:53 PM Florian Weimer wrote: > > * blinxen: > > >> I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that > > are not covered by side tags > > > > One use case that I sometimes encounter is requiring a newer version > > for a dependency, that is submitted

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

* Stephen Gallagher: > I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that > are not covered by side tags. If you know of any, please speak up. The overrides are more discoverable: With side tags, you really have to

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

On 22. 01. 24 19:07, Stephen Gallagher wrote: I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that are not covered by side tags. If you know of any, please speak up. Every time somebody asks this, I say: Pull Requests CI I opened https://pagure.io/fedora-ci/general/issue/240

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

* blinxen: >> I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that > are not covered by side tags > > One use case that I sometimes encounter is requiring a newer version > for a dependency, that is submitted to Bodhi with a side-tag. Since > the build is in a side-tag, I can't

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

> I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that are not covered by side tags One use case that I sometimes encounter is requiring a newer version for a dependency, that is submitted to Bodhi with a side-tag. Since the build is in a side-tag, I can't access it without

Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

tl;dr: Buildroot overrides should be restricted to releng members and packagers should use on-demand side-tags instead. I'd like to ascertain whether there are any remaining use-cases for which buildroot overrides are preferable to (or necessary instead of) on-demand side-tags. We've had support