[EPEL-devel] Re: Stub python packages for EPEL

[Kevin Fenzi]

On 08/04/2017 12:37 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>> "KF" == Kevin Fenzi  writes:
> 
> KF> I don't think we have any way to find out the version of a package
> KF> in all channels. At least I don't know of such a way. So, I think we
> KF> should concern ourselves with only the channels that EPEL says it
> KF> will try and not conflict with.
> 
> I don't even know what those are, really.  All I know is what I can
> extract from those json files, and what CentOS has.  Certainly limiting
> things to what EPEL can see is the only reasonable way; I was just
> trying to hedge against the fact that I can't see what's in 

The json files we provide are the exact channels that epel uses and
tries not to collide with. RHEL has hundreds (thousands?) of other
channels we don't look at.

> KF> So, yeah, we would need to make sure and retire the epel package as
> KF> soon as rhel started providing a source package with the same name.
> 
> I think it is somewhat unlikely that RHEL would begin providing any
> python2-X source packages where they currently provide python-X source
> packages.  I guess it's possible, though, and it's something we'd have
> to deal with immediately if it ever happens.  However, it shouldn't
> cause issues for end-user systems in that case, only the EPEL builders,
> and for those the fix is very quick (block in koji and wait for a newrepo).

Yep.

> KF> I'm in favor... lets give it a try with some of the common ones. :)
> 
> Thanks; I have a list of four I'm starting with, listed at the end of
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/EPELPythonStubPackages
> 
> I hope that once in this will make life easier for someone.

Indeed. Thanks for working on this.

kevin





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Re: Stub python packages for EPEL

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> "KF" == Kevin Fenzi  writes:

KF> I don't think we have any way to find out the version of a package
KF> in all channels. At least I don't know of such a way. So, I think we
KF> should concern ourselves with only the channels that EPEL says it
KF> will try and not conflict with.

I don't even know what those are, really.  All I know is what I can
extract from those json files, and what CentOS has.  Certainly limiting
things to what EPEL can see is the only reasonable way; I was just
trying to hedge against the fact that I can't see what's in 

KF> So, yeah, we would need to make sure and retire the epel package as
KF> soon as rhel started providing a source package with the same name.

I think it is somewhat unlikely that RHEL would begin providing any
python2-X source packages where they currently provide python-X source
packages.  I guess it's possible, though, and it's something we'd have
to deal with immediately if it ever happens.  However, it shouldn't
cause issues for end-user systems in that case, only the EPEL builders,
and for those the fix is very quick (block in koji and wait for a newrepo).

KF> I'm in favor... lets give it a try with some of the common ones. :)

Thanks; I have a list of four I'm starting with, listed at the end of
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/EPELPythonStubPackages

I hope that once in this will make life easier for someone.

 - J<
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Re: Stub python packages for EPEL

[Kevin Fenzi]

On 08/01/2017 10:41 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> One of things I've invested some time towards over the years is cutting
> down on the amount of %if spaghetti needed to share spec files between
> Fedora and EPEL.  Earlier in the discussion about the mass python-X ->
> python2-X move I volunteered to maintain a number of "stub packages" in
> EPEL which have the sole purpose of letting packagers uniformly have
> dependencies on python2-X.  A couple of people told me they thought I
> was being facetious, so I wanted to try again and assure everyone that I
> was indeed serious.
> 
> Here's a rough, in-progress draft:
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/EPELPythonStubPackages
> 
> Basically: create some EPEL-specific python2-X packages that do nothing
> besides depend on the base RHEL python-X packages.
> 
> If anyone can think of a reason why this would be problematic, please
> let me know.  I'm especially concerned about situations where the
> existence of these packages could cause problems for RHEL.  I've tried
> to be careful about detailing how version and release would be
> maintained and how the dependencies will be versioned so that RHEL can
> be updated without the EPEL package being immediately updated to match.

A few comments:

"Since in RHEL it's possible for one package to have many different
versions in various channels, it makes sense to try to stick with the
lowest version that's in any channel. In any case, EPEL is limited in
what channels it supports. "

I don't think we have any way to find out the version of a package in
all channels. At least I don't know of such a way. So, I think we should
concern ourselves with only the channels that EPEL says it will try and
not conflict with.

Note that there is a case here if rhel and epel have a source package
with the same name, the epel one will be used in all buildroots no
matter what the versions. So, yeah, we would need to make sure and
retire the epel package as soon as rhel started providing a source
package with the same name. If they are still different source packages
then the newest one would win.

I'm in favor... lets give it a try with some of the common ones. :)

kevin



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org