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

Re: 'policy' for multiple versions of same software in EPEL

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 09:45:21 -0500
Greg Swift <gregswift gmail com> wrote:


> Do you have any thread names or search phrases to recommend? I found
> several threads back in 2007, which all appear to be early EPEL.
> Unfortunately, the audience and use of EPEL was much smaller then.
> Its good to see that there was discussion about how to ensure this
> happens in the future.  The repository directory structure does look
> like it can still handle the additional repository.
> The question then becomes how would it fit into the koji/bodhi work
> flow.  Is there a good reference for that? I've read the existing
> workflow document on Bodhi's wiki. It seems to me that there would
> have to be an additional package state, which may not directly plug
> into how bodhi currently works.
>                                             \--UNSTABLE--/------------/
> With an UNSTABLE package also being able to push into STABLE if the
> STABLE package is no longer considered safe to run (that unsupported,
> or no available patch for security issue, or whatever.. would define a
> list)
> Or the UNSTABLE package would just live in UNSTABLE unless it gets
> sent to OBSOLETE.

Right. If you allow crossing the unstable/stable streams here it
becomes very complicated. 

This is where the start of all the work is... make git repos understand
an unstable, make bodhi and mash and other compose tools understand it,
have some way to report bugs about it (how do you set it in bugzilla?). 

Lots of complicated questions and then lots of actual work. ;) 

Even if you don't allow them to cross (ie, it's a completely seperate
branch), it has still a bunch of work around the tools to get them
working with it. Also, there will be problems where 'stable' stuff gets
ignored or shoved down because people are more interested in the
unstable part, etc. 

Personally, I don't have the time or desire to do all this work. If a
group of folks wanted to write up a complete plan here and offer to do
the work, I would be happy to provide feedback and get talked into
helping them out, but it would have to be a pretty good plan. :) 


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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