On Friday, September 23, 2016 11:03:27 AM CEST Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Dne 21.9.2016 v 16:59 Pavel Raiskup napsal(a): > > Anyway --> is something like that acceptable upstream? I have patches for > > it already (this would require copying branches within existing git > > repositories). There is plan B: propose this patches but add options > > turning this behavior on/off, whatever default we'll choose. > > Patches against what?
Against everything which is needed to be patched. I was OK with patching Copr only to fix internal Copr instance. > This originate in fedpkg and fedora dist-git. Copr-dist-git and copr-fedpkg > already has some difference, but I do not want to differ even more. Why can't we differ? Is fedora dist-git ever going support all the repos Copr will support? Then maybe it is not the correct approach for Copr, because fedpkg is strictly Fedora oriented, and Copr should not be. The plan B is about optional feature (plan A is to make it done in Fedora Copr similarly as is done in internal Copr). Trust me, now you basically enforce the branch naming for everybody who would consider using Copr. Changing branch layout requires downstream patching and package rebuilds. > Imho this should be discussed with Fedora-infra and maintainer of fedpkg. I probably miss the point why this is so sensitive topic. But I don't really plan to bother Fedora people to force them to change branching policy. Especially if I see how problematic is to even discuss this for @copr. So the answer is NO -- we'll never change that branching policy *in copr*? Because if we wanted to have this done, sooner is better... > > While we are on that, could we discuss renaming from 'epel-*' to > > 'centos-*'? Because we don't tell the truth entirely if we claim those > > are epel-* chroots. > > ??? Epel chroot does not mean RHEL. It means EPEL, which is "high quality > set of additional packages for Enterprise Linux, including, but not limited > to, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), CentOS and Scientific Linux (SL), > Oracle Linux (OL). " Agreed. Already explained in different thread. > On the other hand, the name "centos-*" would imply that it is just CentOS, > without additional repos. Which is not true. It may have sense if we add > "centos-*" beside the "epel-*", but there is no demand for that. And it will > likely just confuse people. Agreed. As written in different thread, can epel in Fedora copr be the same as epel in Fedora's default build system? Pavel _______________________________________________ copr-devel mailing list -- copr-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org To unsubscribe send an email to copr-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org
