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

Re: Summary of the 2008-04-08 Packaging Committee meeting



Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le lundi 12 mai 2008 à 15:48 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway a écrit :

* I'm not mandating that JPackage change anything. This is specifically
targeted on handling the Fedora packages which are derived from JPackage
packages.

That's not realistic, if you want your matching to work you need the
tagging implemented both sides. The Fedora side is the easy one. Fedora
has still not merged the bulk of the JPackage repository.

Either I'm reading this page wrong:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DeepakBhole/ReasonsForKeepingJPP

or there's additional rationale for .jpp that's not on that page.

The only thing I'm seeing from that page is that people want to select the Fedora packages on their system that have a companion package in JPackage so that they can either remove the Fedora package in favor of the JPackage version or in order to see which packages originated in JPackage. There's no reason that I see listed on that page for JPackage to rebuild with a new group/vendor. In fact, if JPackage were to rebuild with the same group it would defeat the purpose of including that group.

I'm not saying that .jpp has to go, but I will say the .jpp-in-Fedora exception was explicitly given a limit when it was voted in that revolved around the selection issue being resolved in another manner. I don't mind debating the merits of the new selection method, but changing the rules of what the requirements are once the old requirements are met does make me a bit upset.

Some of the base assumptions on the ReasonsForKeepingJPP also don't seem to be in line with past thinking about third party repositories. We don't support people installing an rpm provided by an upstream on sourceforge if it's newer than the one in Fedora and back and forth. We don't support people getting packages from Mandrake if they aren't available in Fedora. We don't support people installing a python stack from pyvault to replace the one in Fedora.

We should either ship repodata for JPackage in the repo, officially support JPackage packages, and stop repackaging JPackage packages for Fedora or we should stop pretending that it's a goal of ours for people to be able to switch out the Java stack provided by Fedora with the Java stack provided by JPackage, interleave versions with whichever has the newer version, and etc. (Note that this paragraph is not about packaging guidelines so it's not an option that the Packaging Committee can consider. It's probably a FESCo discussion much as the repotag discussion was an EPEL Steering Committee discussion.)

-Toshio


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