On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:43:52 -0500 inode0 <ino...@gmail.com> wrote: > No, I don't want them dropped from the build system. I want to know > why piranha can't be packaged by EPEL for example?
We added those channels to the buildsystem due to maintainer requests.
I think back when RHEL was in beta we had at least 2-3 maintainers say
that they wished to build $foo for EPEL6, but it needed $bar, which was
already in one of {ha|lb}, so could we please add them?
I think it's just mostly history at this point.
If we wanted to try and untangle them and drop them from the
buildsystem, would that make policy making better/more sane/more clear?
I'd like to see what packages that might affect.
ha has 41 packages in it.
lb has only 2.
The following epel packages require packages in those 2 repos:
esmtp-0:1.0-7.el6.x86_64
heartbeat-0:3.0.4-1.el6.x86_64
libesmtp-0:1.0.4-16.el6.i686
libesmtp-0:1.0.4-16.el6.x86_64
libesmtp-devel-0:1.0.4-16.el6.i686
libesmtp-devel-0:1.0.4-16.el6.x86_64
pexpect-0:2.3-5.el6.noarch
plplot-devel-0:5.9.7-3.el6.1.i686
plplot-devel-0:5.9.7-3.el6.1.x86_64
python-fedora-turbogears2-0:0.3.28.1-1.el6.noarch
python-fedora-turbogears2-0:0.3.29-1.el6.noarch
python-repoze-who-friendlyform-0:1.0.8-2.el6.noarch
python-sprox-0:0.6.11-1.el6.noarch
python-suds-0:0.4.1-1.el6.noarch
python-tgext-crud-0:0.3.11-1.el6.noarch
python-tw-forms-0:0.9.9-3.el6.noarch
python-tw-jquery-0:0.9.10-1.el6.noarch
python-vatnumber-0:1.0-1.el6.noarch
sheepdog-0:0.2.3-2.el6.x86_64
sigul-0:0.97-1.el6.noarch
TurboGears-0:1.1.3-2.el6.noarch
yumex-0:3.0.5-2.el6.noarch
Note however that much of those are already due to overlap issues.
pexpect is in ha, but also in epel.
In ha: pexpect-0:2.3-6.el6.noarch
in epel: pexpect-0:2.3-5.el6.noarch
in ha: python-tw-forms-0:0.9.9-1.el6.noarch
in epel: python-tw-forms-0:0.9.9-3.el6.noarch
> If EPEL can ship rpms from the resilient storage channel I see no
> reason not to ship packages from the load balancer channel.
ok.
> So the build system is os+optional+lb+ha+rs+other stuff I don't recall
> if I understood previously
No. This entire thing started because someone asked about glusterfs,
which was/is in epel and RS. No conclusion has been made, the
buildsystem does not use RS or Other stuff.
You can always look at koji:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taginfo?tagID=140
> but EPEL only prohibits shipping packages
> from os+optional+lb+ha. I'm wondering why the restriction against
> shipping packages isn't just os+optional here.
It could be. Would that make the line and expectations more clear?
Would that cause less trouble for people?
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list epel-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
