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

Re: Proposal for final repolayout

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:45:52 +0200
fedora leemhuis info (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:

> Hi,
> seems we need koji modification to use bodhi, which likely itself
> might need some adjustments for proper EPEL support as well. Both
> things will take time to get realized as it seems other work is
> higher on peoples todo list atm.


> So I'd say EPEL should for the near future plan to continue to use
> plague together with the old Fedora Extras push scripts until we can
> switch to koji and bodhi; otherwise it might take a long time until we
> are ready to announce EPEL officially, which I'd like to avoid

See Mike's email on this. The push scripts currently don't have any way
to handle testing. So should we go forward without testing? Or try and
find some way to get them working with it?

> We just should make sure the repo layout is sane for the near future
> and can be used with bodihi later as well (Luke, that's why you are
> in the CC of this mail; if there is anything that would be hard to
> realize in bodihi let us know please).
> I'd like to propose round about this layout below
> http://redhat.download.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/
> stable/
> 	4/ -> 4.(current_version())
> 	4.1/
> 	...
> 	4.5/
> 	5/ -> 5.(current_version())
> 	5.1/
> 	...
> 	testing/
> 		4/
> 		5/
> rolling/
> 	4/ -> 4.(current_version())
> 	4.1/
> 	...
> 	5/ -> 5.(current_version())
> 	5.1/
> 	...
> We currently have symbolic links from "4{AS,WS,ES}" to "4" and
> "5{Client,Server}" to "5" on the server as well; they should be there
> in the future as well, but I left them out of this scheme to not make
> things even more complicated to understand.
> Please ignore the "rolling" stuff as well; it seems some people would
> like to have a more "Fedora Extras" like EPEL with a bold update
> policy (always latest and greatest). I'd like to leave the path for
> this open in the long term, that why I'd say we should put the
> current EPEL stuff below "stable".

I think this adds to confusion... I thought we had determined that EPEL
was going to target more 'stable' type update methods? 
Folks wanting a really fast a furious update should use another repo
that does that, or perhaps they could always have updates-testing
enabled (although that might not be fast enough for them). 

> How to realize the layout: have two different plague-targets per
> release; the default target is "testing/(release())"; that repo
> becomes the stable release automatically when RH ships a new
> quarterly update. If you want to get something into the stable repo
> for the current release use a special build target, from which the
> extras-push-scripts push into the proper dir directly.

Humm... that might work. I don't know enough of how the push scripts
work currently. perhaps Dgilmore could comment?

> Comments?

All sounds good except I would skip the 'stable/rolling' dirs. 

> CU
> thl


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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