Re: Which Fedora/EPEL is targeted by packaging guidelines?

2017-12-11 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 12/02/2017 02:35 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Vít Ondruch wrote: This is big and old-school hammer. If you did "git cherry-pick" instead, you could get most of the changes you did in master without the branches. Also, merging means that you get into older (or EPEL) branches stuff like changelogs

Re: Which Fedora/EPEL is targeted by packaging guidelines?

2017-12-11 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 2.12.2017 v 02:35 Kevin Kofler napsal(a): > Vít Ondruch wrote: >> This is big and old-school hammer. If you did "git cherry-pick" instead, >> you could get most of the changes you did in master without the >> branches. Also, merging means that you get into older (or EPEL) branches >> stuff

Re: Which Fedora/EPEL is targeted by packaging guidelines?

2017-12-04 Thread Miroslav Suchý
Dne 30.11.2017 v 09:49 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > Apparently, there are two camps of packagers in Fedora/EPEL. Those who want: > > 1) single version of .spec file to cover the whole Red Hat ecosystem. I belong to this camp. Especially if you are a developer of layered application, which is not

Re: Which Fedora/EPEL is targeted by packaging guidelines?

2017-12-01 Thread Kevin Kofler
Vít Ondruch wrote: > This is big and old-school hammer. If you did "git cherry-pick" instead, > you could get most of the changes you did in master without the > branches. Also, merging means that you get into older (or EPEL) branches > stuff like changelogs from mass rebuild, which should not be

Re: Which Fedora/EPEL is targeted by packaging guidelines?

2017-12-01 Thread Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
On Friday, 01 December 2017 at 11:39, Vít Ondruch wrote: [...] > What I really want to answer is the question in $SUBJECT, since the > scope of guidelines is not specified anywhere. It seems that FPC itself > does not know what releases they target and my guidelines update [1] is > stuck in review

Re: Which Fedora/EPEL is targeted by packaging guidelines?

2017-12-01 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 30.11.2017 v 17:32 Stephen John Smoogen napsal(a): > On 30 November 2017 at 03:49, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Reading logs from yesterdays FPC meeting [1], I think we should discuss >> what is actually purpose of packaging guidelines and which version of >>

Re: Which Fedora/EPEL is targeted by packaging guidelines?

2017-11-30 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 30.11.2017 v 16:39 Matthew Miller napsal(a): > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 04:33:07PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> The EPEL number you are presenting are bit unrelated number. You should >> compare how many "enhancement" and "bugfix" updates were submitted in >> EPEL versus Fedora (and actually

Re: Which Fedora/EPEL is targeted by packaging guidelines?

2017-11-30 Thread Stephen John Smoogen
On 30 November 2017 at 03:49, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Hi all, > > Reading logs from yesterdays FPC meeting [1], I think we should discuss > what is actually purpose of packaging guidelines and which version of > Fedora/EPEL/RHEL they actually targets. > > > Apparently, there are

Re: Which Fedora/EPEL is targeted by packaging guidelines?

2017-11-30 Thread Matthew Miller
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 04:33:07PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > The EPEL number you are presenting are bit unrelated number. You should > compare how many "enhancement" and "bugfix" updates were submitted in > EPEL versus Fedora (and actually you can't evaluate Fedora correctly > since there are no

Re: Which Fedora/EPEL is targeted by packaging guidelines?

2017-11-30 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 30.11.2017 v 16:15 Richard Shaw napsal(a): > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Kevin Kofler > wrote: > > Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Apparently, there are two camps of packagers in Fedora/EPEL. > Those who > > want: > > >

Re: Which Fedora/EPEL is targeted by packaging guidelines?

2017-11-30 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 30.11.2017 v 16:02 Matthew Miller napsal(a): > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 09:49:14AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> Apparently, there are two camps of packagers in Fedora/EPEL. Those who want: >> 1) single version of .spec file to cover the whole Red Hat ecosystem. >> 2) clean .spec file

Re: Which Fedora/EPEL is targeted by packaging guidelines?

2017-11-30 Thread Richard Shaw
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Apparently, there are two camps of packagers in Fedora/EPEL. Those who > > want: > > > > 1) single version of .spec file to cover the whole Red Hat ecosystem. > > > > 2) clean .spec file

Re: Which Fedora/EPEL is targeted by packaging guidelines?

2017-11-30 Thread Matthew Miller
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 09:49:14AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Apparently, there are two camps of packagers in Fedora/EPEL. Those who want: > 1) single version of .spec file to cover the whole Red Hat ecosystem. > 2) clean .spec file following the latest and greatest packaging practices. Here's

Re: Which Fedora/EPEL is targeted by packaging guidelines?

2017-11-30 Thread Kevin Kofler
Vít Ondruch wrote: > Apparently, there are two camps of packagers in Fedora/EPEL. Those who > want: > > 1) single version of .spec file to cover the whole Red Hat ecosystem. > > 2) clean .spec file following the latest and greatest packaging practices. I am actually inbetween: I want a single

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Which Fedora/EPEL is targeted by packaging guidelines?

2017-11-30 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 30.11.2017 v 10:35 nicolas.mail...@laposte.net napsal(a): > Hi, > > I totally agree with the spirit, but that would require Red Hat taking a more > active role in backporting package tooling to RHEL/EPEL. > > Latest guidelines are always more efficient for everyone (Red Hat employees >

Re: Which Fedora/EPEL is targeted by packaging guidelines?

2017-11-30 Thread nicolas . mailhot
Hi, I totally agree with the spirit, but that would require Red Hat taking a more active role in backporting package tooling to RHEL/EPEL. Latest guidelines are always more efficient for everyone (Red Hat employees includes), but all too often they can't be applied to EPEL because no one at