Hi there,
On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 1:04 AM Mikel Olasagasti <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi list,
>
> Prometheus exporters are small agents that collect metrics from systems or
> services and expose them on an HTTP endpoint to be consumed by Prometheus.
>
> Currently, we have 3 exporters in Fedora:
> - node-exporter (previously golang-github-prometheus-node-exporter)
> - prometheus-podman-exporter
> - rust-monitord-exporter
>
> We also have package review requests for 4 more:
> - snmp-exporter: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2490148
> - blackbox-exporter: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2500076
> - redis-exporter: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2500075
> - python-coredump_exporter:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2431666
"coredump_exporter" seems to be outlier there FWIW.
> In addition to these, I plan to package at least 3 more (mysql, postgresql,
> and ssl).
>
> To avoid creating inconsistent precedents, we would like to discuss
> some standard
> practices openly. We started a discussion on a Bugzilla ticket [1] about
> correct naming and config paths, and we would love to collect feedback on
> the following points:
>
>
> 1. Naming (Underscores vs. Hyphens)
> -----------------------------------
> Most upstream exporters use underscores in their names like node_exporter or
> snmp_exporter. However, Fedora Naming Guidelines [2] prefer hyphens and
> define only a few exceptions.
>
> * Should Prometheus exporters be added to these exceptions?
> * Currently, node-exporter uses "Provides: node_exporter" as a workaround, but
> doesn't help on searches. Is this the preferred approach?
Personally I prefer the hyphens, and that seems to be the general theme
with the exporter package names (and upstreams) too.
> * For packages like rust-monitord-exporter, Rust packaging guidelines might
> conflict with a general decision here. What is the best way to handle this?
+1 for keeping "rust-monitord-exporter" naming.
> * Should configuration files and systemd service names follow the Fedora
> package name (downstream), or is it better to stick to the upstream name?
>
>
> 2. The "prometheus-" Prefix
> ---------------------------
> To make these packages easy to identify:
>
> * Should all exporter packages have a "prometheus-" prefix?
IMO, no. There are plenty of use cases where Prometheus isn't used at all with
these exporters (PCP, OpenTelemetry, etc.; many other monitoring and analysis
tools consume this exposition format nowadays).
> * Should the installed binaries have a "prometheus-" prefix?
IMO, no.
> * Should the systemd service files and configuration files have a
> "prometheus-" prefix?
>
No.
>
> 3. Configuration Files
> ----------------------
> Some exporters like blackbox and snmp require configuration files.
>
> * Should these config files reside in:
> %{_sysconfdir}/prometheus/<exporter_name>/
> ...or directly in:
> %{_sysconfdir}/<exporter_name>/
>
Directly.
>
> 4. Documentation
> ----------------
> Should we document these best practices in the Fedora Packaging Guidelines
> under "Other Domain-specific Guidelines"?
>
We should consider that though this exposition format originated with the
Prometheus project (well, originally derived from Googles internal metrics
system of that time) there are many projects that generate and consume
it now, unrelated to Prometheus, often under the OpenMetrics moniker.
Keep it simple. "-exporter" is enough of an identifier IMO.
cheers.
--
Nathan
--
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
