On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 at 18:35, Dave Dykstra <d...@fnal.gov> wrote: > > It seems to be worse than that. When I tried around 2 weeks ago, > building a version in epel8-playground blocked building the same version > in epel8. > https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8925 > I did similar builds earlier and didn't have the problem. >
There was a problem in the build system when you tried this. I have replied to the ticket as it should be cleared up now and I thought all tickets had been answered but I missed this one. > I have packages.cfg that targets epel8 in the epel8 git branch and > epel8-playground in the epel8-playground branch and haven't touched > them. > > Dave > > On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 01:57:13PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote: > > On 11/3/19 12:47 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 08:06:07AM -0700, Troy Dawson wrote: > > > > For KDE, I built all the packages in epel8-playground. At the time, > > > > it seemed like the right thing to do. (Whether it was or not is > > > > another discussion). I also built several packages in playground that > > > > were not part of KDE, but were build and runtime dependencies. > > > > > > > > Those non-KDE packages, I have been trying to get built on regular > > > > epel8 by their normal maintainers. Or building myself if the normal > > > > maintainer don't want to support epel8. > > > > > > > > Question: What do I do about those package currently in -playground, > > > > that just got built in regular epel8? > > > > The versions may, or may not, be the same. > > > > > > > > A related question, but not necessarily for this set of packages. > > > > What is our plan in a year or two, if a package clearly is maintained > > > > in epel8, but abandoned in epel8-playground? > > > > > > Right, so this is what Kanarip was talking about the other day on IRC. > > > > > > Consider the case: > > > > > > - I have foo-1.0-1 in epel8 and epel8-playground > > > - I want to play with foo-2.0 in playground, so I tweak packages.cfg and > > > build it in playground. > > > - Later I decide its stable so I build foo-2.0-1 in epel8. > > > - A update comes out to 2.1, so I build foo-2.1-1 in epel8, but I didn't > > > put the packages.cfg back and the version in epel8-playground is now > > > foo-2.0-1 still. > > > - I later try and build bar-2.0 in epel8-playground, and it builds > > > against foo-2.0-1 instead of foo-2.1 > > > > > > I guess the expectation is that the maintainer should put the > > > packages.cfg back in place when merging back to epel8, but I could see > > > this getting forgotten. > > > > > > So, perhaps the best way forward here is some reporting? > > > > > > ie, check upgrade path between all epel8 and epel8-playground packages. > > > The playgound ones should always upgrade the epel8 one. > > > > > > kevin > > > > I guess I don't see why anyone needs to muck with packages.cfg. If you want > > to build something for epel8-playground, just build it from the > > epel8-playground branch. > > > _______________________________________________ > epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > 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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org -- Stephen J Smoogen. _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
