[Fedora-packaging] Re: Repotag in EPEL

[Axel Thimm]

On Sun, Mar 18, 2007 at 03:17:13PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> I'd like to ask the Packaging Committee (which afaics is responsible
> for the Packaging standards used in Fedora projects, which includes
> EPEL) for advice and a formal decision about using a repotag in
> EPEL.

We do need a mandate, but that's in the works, so let's assume the FPC
is empowered and willing (I am, I can't speak about the rest of the
members) to define EPEL guidelines as well.

> There are a lot of people strongly urging to use one

> I (and some other EPEL SIG members afaics) don't care much about using
> one or not. But afaics the use of a repotag is unwanted in Fedora-land
> up to now afaics.
> 
> If the answer from the PC is "yes, EPEL is free to use a repotag" then
> please decide how to actually use it -- Add a "repotag" macro defined by
> the buildsys or overload %{dist}, ...

Technically, if EPEL gets a repotag it should be via %dist, so that no
specfile using %dist will need to be touched. Furthermore it would
have to be something like say ".el5.epel" or similar to fit the usual
<buildid>.<disttag>.<repotag> structure.

The topic is a bit political as it influences the releationship
between EPEL and other 3rd party RHEL supporters. Furthermore we don't
even have a *disttag* *mandatory* for FC because there are different
views withing the contributor body (inner politics if you like).

I think the general repotag issue needs to be solved by EPEL (whether
there will be one or not). We are trying to focus on purely
technically oriented topics and avoid any political decisions,
e.g. what software is allowed to be packaged, the range of licenses
allowed, the firmware policy and so on are mostly input for us (there
is a two way communication to fesco, of course) and we outline the
policies.

So if *the EPEL wants* a repotag we'll be able to shape it into
guidelines. If it doesn't we'll write that down as well. But we'd
probably not decide on whether EPEL marks their packages or not and
thus potentially create political issues between EPEL and other repos
by the feather of the FPC.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20070318/f7992601/attachment.sig>