[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Overlap policy v20120615



On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:43:52 -0500
inode0 <inode0 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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]