On Fri, 22 Sept 2023 at 08:45, Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo@redhat.com> wrote:


Il giorno gio 21 set 2023 alle ore 16:38 Eric Curtin <ecurtin@redhat.com> ha scritto:

Another similar technique that's also helpful, is if we ask the Fedora
maintainer to create an EPEL9 version of the package, that way the
community can help maintain the package and you can just "mirror" EPEL
(assuming you keep an eye on the changes they make).

I did this recently when I asked the erofs-utils maintainer to create
an EPEL9 rpm for our erosfs related features we are working on:

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/erofs-utils

I'm not sure this is a good idea.
```
EPEL is a selection of packages from Fedora, but only packages that are not in RHEL or its layered products to avoid conflicts.
```


So this isn't 'correct'. EPEL is a selection of packages from Fedora, but only packages that are not in RHEL to avoid conflicts. 

EPEL will ship things which are in layered products usually because the layered product is tired of getting requests for supporting libZZZ in RHEL when they don't want to but they know that a lot of people are needing it. [Or as some layered products have said the version they have is only there for 1 limited reason but they can't update it so no one should use that version.]

 
And RHIVOS is a layered product so having stuff in EPEL may end up with conflicts later on.
We had similar issues with mom and vdsm packages which were also shipped in Red Hat Virtualization (downstream of oVirt project) in the past and we had to drop them from EPEL to solve issues.

I don't remember those specific packages being a problem on the EPEL side or what release that happened in. Most of the time we have dropped RHEL layered packages from EPEL because they got included in RHEL proper, or the packager was treating EPEL like Fedora with major unannounced updates every couple of weeks because the upstream was too active for enterprise.
 
I would rather avoid AutoSD collisions with EPEL if possible.


So up until now, the way I thought we have been getting things into AutoSD was:
0. Get it into a COPR
1. Get it in Fedora (so it could get an initial review and items)
2. Get it in EPEL (so it could be seen to work with RHEL and such)
3. Get it in Automotive SIG CBS (to work with CentOS Stream) to see if needed.
4. Get it into AutoSD if really needed. 

Steps 3 and 4 have been generally harder than 0, 1 and 2. Plus a fair amount of stuff that has been 'requested' by partners eventually turns out not to be really wanted enough for us to take on the support burden. 

I feel that most of the 'hard part' of getting things into 3 and 4 have been that we had a 'hole' in our policies around 'who owns this', 'what does it mean to own it', 'how do we properly review it', and a ton of other things. I believe this is what we are trying to formulate now?

 
--

Sandro Bonazzola

MANAGER, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING

Red Hat In-Vehicle Operating System

Red Hat EMEA

Red Hat respects your work life balance. Therefore there is no need to answer this email out of your office hours.


_______________________________________________
CentOS-automotive-sig mailing list
CentOS-automotive-sig@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-automotive-sig


--
Stephen Smoogen, Red Hat Automotive
Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle. -- Ian MacClaren