Hi,
Since the CentOS acquihire, there was a lot of discussion about EPEL's future. Since the FOSDEM meetup between Fedora/CentOS folks, there was little progress on that topic
After a discussion with a Smooge, I decided to come with a proposal, knowing that 1. Fedora wants to keep EPEL within it umbrella 2. That CentOS SIGs are in practice rebuilding a lot of EPEL packages (or retag them for other SIGs) leading to poor maintenance as they don't follow EPEL tickets for all their dependencies. 3. EPEL is not part CentOS plans, and as soon as SIGs will progress, *may* turn the former irrelevant 4. Some EPEL packages are poorly maintained especially on older EL releases and/or orphaned
We've reached the point where both EPEL/CBS would greatly benefit to join hands.
So I suggest that we consider the following: * EPEL will still use Fedora dist-git * EPEL builds should be done in CBS to make it easier for SIGs to consume it. * EPEL will use CentOS repositories instead of mirroring RHEL repositories * Bridging Fedora/CentOS accounting system (CentOS is migrating to FAS) <== we need to see the feasibility of this but that would be optimal, that would increase the permeability between our two contributors pools which is something, we all want to encourage. * Create a EPEL provenpackager group under CentOS core SIG supervision, allowing them to appoint people to maintain EPEL packages.
I suggest that we keep the EPEL name to acknowledge EPEL historical effort to provide quality additional packages for EL distros. Fedora contributors would still be able to contribute to EPEL, and CentOS contributors to make it up their standards.
Would that work for you?
Regards, H.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 7:12 AM, Haïkel hguemar@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Hi,
Since the CentOS acquihire, there was a lot of discussion about EPEL's future. Since the FOSDEM meetup between Fedora/CentOS folks, there was little progress on that topic
After a discussion with a Smooge, I decided to come with a proposal, knowing that
- Fedora wants to keep EPEL within it umbrella
- That CentOS SIGs are in practice rebuilding a lot of EPEL packages
(or retag them for other SIGs) leading to poor maintenance as they don't follow EPEL tickets for all their dependencies. 3. EPEL is not part CentOS plans, and as soon as SIGs will progress, *may* turn the former irrelevant 4. Some EPEL packages are poorly maintained especially on older EL releases and/or orphaned
We've reached the point where both EPEL/CBS would greatly benefit to join hands.
So I suggest that we consider the following:
- EPEL will still use Fedora dist-git
- EPEL builds should be done in CBS to make it easier for SIGs to consume
it.
- EPEL will use CentOS repositories instead of mirroring RHEL repositories
- Bridging Fedora/CentOS accounting system (CentOS is migrating to
FAS) <== we need to see the feasibility of this but that would be optimal, that would increase the permeability between our two contributors pools which is something, we all want to encourage.
- Create a EPEL provenpackager group under CentOS core SIG
supervision, allowing them to appoint people to maintain EPEL packages.
I suggest that we keep the EPEL name to acknowledge EPEL historical effort to provide quality additional packages for EL distros. Fedora contributors would still be able to contribute to EPEL, and CentOS contributors to make it up their standards.
Would that work for you?
I'm a maintainer of several EPEL packages and a CentOS user. After reading through this, I don't understand the value in this shift. Also, what are the potential negatives of the change? Thanks, Dave
2015-09-21 16:38 GMT+02:00 Dave Johansen davejohansen@gmail.com:
I'm a maintainer of several EPEL packages and a CentOS user. After reading through this, I don't understand the value in this shift. Also, what are the potential negatives of the change? Thanks, Dave
I don't see any negative except that it will require some efforts to do the transition (and I'm already volunteering to work on that). Bridging two FAS instances may not be possible currently. The value is that, what CentOS SIGs are trying to build will leverage EPEL without having them duplicate in a poorly fashion, work done in EPEL. https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup Enhancing collaboration between EPEL and CentOS will allow us to ship a much better curated EPEL repository, you're more likely to find people able to provide proper maintenance of EPEL packages within the CentOS community.
And if CentOS ended up rebuilding an EPEL-like repositories (which will happen sooner or later), what will happen to EPEL? Moreover, rebuilding EPEL from scratch will be painful and long process.
Regards, H.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 09/21/2015 07:12 AM, Haïkel wrote:
- EPEL will use CentOS repositories instead of mirroring RHEL
repositories
Worth noting that one of the values people get (or perceive) about EPEL is that it is built against RHEL repositories. This is really important for people who use EPEL on RHEL, as it makes potential support discussions more clean. Red Hat's support team is more comfortable pointing customers at EPEL solutions knowing that it is build against RHEL rather than CentOS.
- - Karsten - -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade .^\ CentOS Doer of Stuff http://TheOpenSourceWay.org \ http://community.redhat.com @quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:12:07 +0200 Haïkel hguemar@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Hi,
Since the CentOS acquihire, there was a lot of discussion about EPEL's future. Since the FOSDEM meetup between Fedora/CentOS folks, there was little progress on that topic
After a discussion with a Smooge, I decided to come with a proposal, knowing that
- Fedora wants to keep EPEL within it umbrella
- That CentOS SIGs are in practice rebuilding a lot of EPEL packages
(or retag them for other SIGs) leading to poor maintenance as they don't follow EPEL tickets for all their dependencies.
Which tickets do you mean here? They are only rebuilding some packages, but not others or?
- EPEL is not part CentOS plans, and as soon as SIGs will progress,
*may* turn the former irrelevant
I suppose, but lots of people use/look to epel for packages, I don't think that will change to using packages from CentOS sigs overnight.
- Some EPEL packages are poorly maintained especially on older EL
releases and/or orphaned
Sure, just like any large collection of packages.
We've reached the point where both EPEL/CBS would greatly benefit to join hands.
So I suggest that we consider the following:
- EPEL will still use Fedora dist-git
- EPEL builds should be done in CBS to make it easier for SIGs to
consume it.
How do EPEL maintainers launch builds in CBS? How do builds get signed? How do updates get pushed out to EPEL users? Does CentOS have a bodhi instance?
- EPEL will use CentOS repositories instead of mirroring RHEL
repositories
CBS seems to not have ppc64... so no more ppc64 EPEL packages?
Also, this would probibly be some kind of big deal to some people who like that EPEL is built against rhel. Personally, I don't think it matters, but it would have to be communicated clearly.
- Bridging Fedora/CentOS accounting system (CentOS is migrating to
FAS) <== we need to see the feasibility of this but that would be optimal, that would increase the permeability between our two contributors pools which is something, we all want to encourage.
Bridging in which way? what information would be good to communicate back and forth?
- Create a EPEL provenpackager group under CentOS core SIG
supervision, allowing them to appoint people to maintain EPEL packages.
Overriding the existing EPEL maintainers?
I suggest that we keep the EPEL name to acknowledge EPEL historical effort to provide quality additional packages for EL distros. Fedora contributors would still be able to contribute to EPEL, and CentOS contributors to make it up their standards.
Would that work for you?
I think there would be a large amount of technical and public relations work needed to get anything like this off the ground.
If the problem is that CBS only has a subset of epel builds, perhaps we could solve that by setting up a script that listens to fedora fedmsgs and imports epel builds from fedora koji when they are done?
kevin
2015-09-21 19:46 GMT+02:00 Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:12:07 +0200 Haïkel hguemar@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Hi,
Since the CentOS acquihire, there was a lot of discussion about EPEL's future. Since the FOSDEM meetup between Fedora/CentOS folks, there was little progress on that topic
After a discussion with a Smooge, I decided to come with a proposal, knowing that
- Fedora wants to keep EPEL within it umbrella
- That CentOS SIGs are in practice rebuilding a lot of EPEL packages
(or retag them for other SIGs) leading to poor maintenance as they don't follow EPEL tickets for all their dependencies.
Which tickets do you mean here? They are only rebuilding some packages, but not others or?
Any tickets filed against EPEL, for instance, if a bug or CVE is fixed against EPEL package, CBS rebuilds won't be impacted as there's no way to automate that. Some examples from CentOS Cloud SIG: * RabbitMQ: it's a runtime requirement for OpenStack, we could just reuse EPEL packages but that would mean that Cloud SIG repository wouldn't be self-contained => Nick Coghlan's RepoFunnel would be a solution to mash repositories here. * A hell lot of python build requirements, that have to be rebuilt in CBS, as CBS don't have access to EPEL packages.
For instance, if the EPEL package gets fixed for a CVE, the CBS package may not get fixed (and vice-versa). Moreover, it makes mixing EPEL and CentOS SIGs repositories harder.
- EPEL is not part CentOS plans, and as soon as SIGs will progress,
*may* turn the former irrelevant
I suppose, but lots of people use/look to epel for packages, I don't think that will change to using packages from CentOS sigs overnight.
I agree.
- Some EPEL packages are poorly maintained especially on older EL
releases and/or orphaned
Sure, just like any large collection of packages.
Yes, but all the more a reason to make it easier for CentOS community to participate to this efforts
We've reached the point where both EPEL/CBS would greatly benefit to join hands.
So I suggest that we consider the following:
- EPEL will still use Fedora dist-git
- EPEL builds should be done in CBS to make it easier for SIGs to
consume it.
How do EPEL maintainers launch builds in CBS?
Through bstrinson centpkg tool as for the tooling aspect (infra-related issues are covered in a later point)
How do builds get signed?
That would be left to CentOS core SIG team
How do updates get pushed out to EPEL users? Does CentOS have a bodhi
Good question, from my current experience, I get little feedback on my EPEL updates and never got one pushed to stable just through karma.
instance?
- EPEL will use CentOS repositories instead of mirroring RHEL
repositories
CBS seems to not have ppc64... so no more ppc64 EPEL packages?
True, if we could get some stats over ppc64 (and any arch unsupported by CentOS), that would help weighting on the decision as for any trade-off.
Also, this would probibly be some kind of big deal to some people who like that EPEL is built against rhel. Personally, I don't think it matters, but it would have to be communicated clearly.
(I also saw Karsten reply about it) It needs to be communicated, but considering CentOS good history on that matter, I personally don't think it's big deal, too.
- Bridging Fedora/CentOS accounting system (CentOS is migrating to
FAS) <== we need to see the feasibility of this but that would be optimal, that would increase the permeability between our two contributors pools which is something, we all want to encourage.
Bridging in which way? what information would be good to communicate back and forth?
I'm not familiar enough with the FAS/pkgdb architecture, so I will just list some requirements. * ensure that EPEL packagers could rebuild their packages in CBS * ensure that CentOS core SIG could administrate epel-provenpackager group
Off course, it could be minimal and may not require syncing FAS instances, in the end.
- Create a EPEL provenpackager group under CentOS core SIG
supervision, allowing them to appoint people to maintain EPEL packages.
Overriding the existing EPEL maintainers?
Yes, as provenpackager could do with most Fedora packages but limited to EPEL branches. I know this may be difficult to give some control to another organization over part of our project. But we need to consider that Fedora/CentOS are part of a larger ecosystem.
I suggest that we keep the EPEL name to acknowledge EPEL historical effort to provide quality additional packages for EL distros. Fedora contributors would still be able to contribute to EPEL, and CentOS contributors to make it up their standards.
Would that work for you?
I think there would be a large amount of technical and public relations work needed to get anything like this off the ground.
If the problem is that CBS only has a subset of epel builds, perhaps we could solve that by setting up a script that listens to fedora fedmsgs and imports epel builds from fedora koji when they are done?
kevin
Yes, my first proposal may have sounded that it's trivial but it's not. On the other hand, this is something achievable and that could benefit for both projects.
As any proposal, this needs to be discussed, improved and comes with a lot of trade-offs but if nobody starts the discussion, we'll just go nowhere. All the points you raised are perfectly valid, and needs to be discussed with every stakeholder. Maybe the final solution will be completely different, but that's not what matters. This is a concrete way to build Fedora/CentOS collaboration.
If merging cost is too important, then we could discuss alternatives (like EPEL rebuilds automation in CBS), but we need to end the discussion at some point. Anyway, I won't champion any proposal that gets no support from both communities.
Regards, H.
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 20:58:21 +0200 Haïkel hguemar@fedoraproject.org wrote:
2015-09-21 19:46 GMT+02:00 Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com:
Which tickets do you mean here? They are only rebuilding some packages, but not others or?
Any tickets filed against EPEL, for instance, if a bug or CVE is fixed against EPEL package, CBS rebuilds won't be impacted as there's no way to automate that.
(well, if we imported from into CBS for EPEL builds there would be)
Some examples from CentOS Cloud SIG:
- RabbitMQ: it's a runtime requirement for OpenStack, we could just
reuse EPEL packages but that would mean that Cloud SIG repository wouldn't be self-contained => Nick Coghlan's RepoFunnel would be a solution to mash repositories here.
- A hell lot of python build requirements, that have to be rebuilt in
CBS, as CBS don't have access to EPEL packages.
For instance, if the EPEL package gets fixed for a CVE, the CBS package may not get fixed (and vice-versa). Moreover, it makes mixing EPEL and CentOS SIGs repositories harder.
Sure, having one place for a package makes sense, I just don't see why it can't be epel repos or koji?
...snip...
Yes, but all the more a reason to make it easier for CentOS community to participate to this efforts
Sure. I am all for helping get more participation...
...snip...
How do builds get signed?
That would be left to CentOS core SIG team
Well, it would have to be a new key, which I think some people may not like.
How do updates get pushed out to EPEL users? Does CentOS have a bodhi
Good question, from my current experience, I get little feedback on my EPEL updates and never got one pushed to stable just through karma.
Well, bodhi provides more than karma feedback. (BTW, hey look, a great place for people to participate!), but also handles things like drpms, multilib, updating bugs, etc.
...snipp...
Bridging in which way? what information would be good to communicate back and forth?
I'm not familiar enough with the FAS/pkgdb architecture, so I will just list some requirements.
- ensure that EPEL packagers could rebuild their packages in CBS
- ensure that CentOS core SIG could administrate epel-provenpackager
group
Off course, it could be minimal and may not require syncing FAS instances, in the end.
Yeah, I am not sure at all how such a bridging could work.
- Create a EPEL provenpackager group under CentOS core SIG
supervision, allowing them to appoint people to maintain EPEL packages.
Overriding the existing EPEL maintainers?
Yes, as provenpackager could do with most Fedora packages but limited to EPEL branches. I know this may be difficult to give some control to another organization over part of our project. But we need to consider that Fedora/CentOS are part of a larger ecosystem.
I've no objections to getting more people helping fix things, but I would think there would need to be a pretty clear process for adding people or removing them (if needed).
...snip...
If the problem is that CBS only has a subset of epel builds, perhaps we could solve that by setting up a script that listens to fedora fedmsgs and imports epel builds from fedora koji when they are done?
kevin
Yes, my first proposal may have sounded that it's trivial but it's not. On the other hand, this is something achievable and that could benefit for both projects.
As any proposal, this needs to be discussed, improved and comes with a lot of trade-offs but if nobody starts the discussion, we'll just go nowhere. All the points you raised are perfectly valid, and needs to be discussed with every stakeholder. Maybe the final solution will be completely different, but that's not what matters. This is a concrete way to build Fedora/CentOS collaboration.
If merging cost is too important, then we could discuss alternatives (like EPEL rebuilds automation in CBS), but we need to end the discussion at some point. Anyway, I won't champion any proposal that gets no support from both communities.
Well, personally, I'd like to hear why less difficult methods wont work:
1. Just enable EPEL repo in CBS? I assume this won't work because people sometimes want to rebuild things? but can't they just make sure they are newer than the EPEL version? or what are the use cases here?
2. Setup a sync script to just import all EPEL builds into CBS. Then they are full builds just like they were done there, and can be untagged/tagged/etc.
I guess I don't have enough data about the use cases that are pressing here.
kevin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 22/09/15 19:15, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Well, personally, I'd like to hear why less difficult methods wont work:
- Just enable EPEL repo in CBS? I assume this won't work because
people sometimes want to rebuild things? but can't they just make sure they are newer than the EPEL version? or what are the use cases here?
- Setup a sync script to just import all EPEL builds into CBS.
Then they are full builds just like they were done there, and can be untagged/tagged/etc.
I guess I don't have enough data about the use cases that are pressing here.
kevin
True, and that was one of the possible solutions I wanted to come with too. As said before, I'd like to avoid #1 for multiple reasons (including not having SIGs consumers to have a hard dep on the whole Epel repository, and when SIGs will build and provide higher versions, sometimes rebuilt from rawhide or another Fedora release)
#2 would have my vote, as then, as you said, SIGs maintainers/developers only have to "tag-build" specific packages they'd like to see landing in their specific SIG repo, and have repo closure without any need for $SIG-release.rpm needing epel-release automatically. The idea is that one one user install a -release.rpm package, he can use/find everything needed through that repository. (when configuring for example gluster/xen/etc ..) That would mean rebuilding the whole EPEL repository first, and then "just" keeping it in sync with "upstream" epel.
- -- Fabian Arrotin The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org gpg key: 56BEC54E | twitter: @arrfab
On Sep 21 20:58, Haïkel wrote:
2015-09-21 19:46 GMT+02:00 Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:12:07 +0200 Haïkel hguemar@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Hi,
Since the CentOS acquihire, there was a lot of discussion about EPEL's future. Since the FOSDEM meetup between Fedora/CentOS folks, there was little progress on that topic
After a discussion with a Smooge, I decided to come with a proposal, knowing that
- Fedora wants to keep EPEL within it umbrella
- That CentOS SIGs are in practice rebuilding a lot of EPEL packages
(or retag them for other SIGs) leading to poor maintenance as they don't follow EPEL tickets for all their dependencies.
+1000 this is definitely one of the more bumpy experiences of the SIG process.
Which tickets do you mean here? They are only rebuilding some packages, but not others or?
Any tickets filed against EPEL, for instance, if a bug or CVE is fixed against EPEL package, CBS rebuilds won't be impacted as there's no way to automate that. Some examples from CentOS Cloud SIG:
- RabbitMQ: it's a runtime requirement for OpenStack, we could just
reuse EPEL packages but that would mean that Cloud SIG repository wouldn't be self-contained => Nick Coghlan's RepoFunnel would be a solution to mash repositories here.
- A hell lot of python build requirements, that have to be rebuilt in
CBS, as CBS don't have access to EPEL packages.
For instance, if the EPEL package gets fixed for a CVE, the CBS package may not get fixed (and vice-versa). Moreover, it makes mixing EPEL and CentOS SIGs repositories harder.
I'd rather see this happen through automation. If we're maintaining a "cbs-common" repo (as Fabian and others are speaking of down-thread), it would be simple to work out the inclusion/exclusion policy and set things going (I suppose that means I've volunteered myself to help with the tools :). Something like cbs-common has the added benefit of treating EPEL like an "upstream" in that developers are allowed to consume the bits from EPEL while adding in packages from other places, and where they're encouraged to contribute back.
- EPEL is not part CentOS plans, and as soon as SIGs will progress,
*may* turn the former irrelevant
I suppose, but lots of people use/look to epel for packages, I don't think that will change to using packages from CentOS sigs overnight.
I agree.
- Some EPEL packages are poorly maintained especially on older EL
releases and/or orphaned
Sure, just like any large collection of packages.
Yes, but all the more a reason to make it easier for CentOS community to participate to this efforts
Participate yes, but EPEL is a packaging effort that, I think, belongs in a community with a broad base of packagers (Fedora). There are definitely things we can do from both sides to make collaboration more seamless.
...SNIP some technical questions...
- Bridging Fedora/CentOS accounting system (CentOS is migrating to
FAS) <== we need to see the feasibility of this but that would be optimal, that would increase the permeability between our two contributors pools which is something, we all want to encourage.
Bridging in which way? what information would be good to communicate back and forth?
I'm not familiar enough with the FAS/pkgdb architecture, so I will just list some requirements.
- ensure that EPEL packagers could rebuild their packages in CBS
Automation through cbs-common would handle this case
- ensure that CentOS core SIG could administrate epel-provenpackager group
I think we should work up something in EPEL for this. We started an "epel-wranglers" group in EPEL-land, I think the next step would be to round up EPEL-provenpackagers some of whom would come from the CentOS community.
Off course, it could be minimal and may not require syncing FAS instances, in the end.
Perhaps not syncing FAS instances, but we (CentOS) are hoping to make progress on our auth systems in concert with Fedora and other communities (See the freshly announced Community Auth Working Group).
- Create a EPEL provenpackager group under CentOS core SIG
supervision, allowing them to appoint people to maintain EPEL packages.
Overriding the existing EPEL maintainers?
Yes, as provenpackager could do with most Fedora packages but limited to EPEL branches. I know this may be difficult to give some control to another organization over part of our project. But we need to consider that Fedora/CentOS are part of a larger ecosystem.
I suggest that we keep the EPEL name to acknowledge EPEL historical effort to provide quality additional packages for EL distros. Fedora contributors would still be able to contribute to EPEL, and CentOS contributors to make it up their standards.
Would that work for you?
I think there would be a large amount of technical and public relations work needed to get anything like this off the ground.
If the problem is that CBS only has a subset of epel builds, perhaps we could solve that by setting up a script that listens to fedora fedmsgs and imports epel builds from fedora koji when they are done?
kevin
Yes, my first proposal may have sounded that it's trivial but it's not. On the other hand, this is something achievable and that could benefit for both projects.
As any proposal, this needs to be discussed, improved and comes with a lot of trade-offs but if nobody starts the discussion, we'll just go nowhere. All the points you raised are perfectly valid, and needs to be discussed with every stakeholder. Maybe the final solution will be completely different, but that's not what matters. This is a concrete way to build Fedora/CentOS collaboration.
If merging cost is too important, then we could discuss alternatives (like EPEL rebuilds automation in CBS), but we need to end the discussion at some point. Anyway, I won't champion any proposal that gets no support from both communities.
Regards, H.
Thanks for bringing this up, it definitely helps 1.) to bring up old points of discussion that have become a bit stale, and 2.) highlight some of the pain points from the point of view of an experienced SIG member.
Cheers! --Brian
On 09/21/2015 07:42 PM, Haïkel wrote:
Hi,
Since the CentOS acquihire, there was a lot of discussion about EPEL's future. Since the FOSDEM meetup between Fedora/CentOS folks, there was little progress on that topic
After a discussion with a Smooge, I decided to come with a proposal, knowing that
- Fedora wants to keep EPEL within it umbrella
- That CentOS SIGs are in practice rebuilding a lot of EPEL packages
(or retag them for other SIGs) leading to poor maintenance as they don't follow EPEL tickets for all their dependencies. 3. EPEL is not part CentOS plans, and as soon as SIGs will progress, *may* turn the former irrelevant 4. Some EPEL packages are poorly maintained especially on older EL releases and/or orphaned
We've reached the point where both EPEL/CBS would greatly benefit to join hands.
So I suggest that we consider the following:
- EPEL will still use Fedora dist-git
- EPEL builds should be done in CBS to make it easier for SIGs to consume it.
- EPEL will use CentOS repositories instead of mirroring RHEL repositories
- Bridging Fedora/CentOS accounting system (CentOS is migrating to
FAS) <== we need to see the feasibility of this but that would be optimal, that would increase the permeability between our two contributors pools which is something, we all want to encourage.
- Create a EPEL provenpackager group under CentOS core SIG
supervision, allowing them to appoint people to maintain EPEL packages.
I suggest that we keep the EPEL name to acknowledge EPEL historical effort to provide quality additional packages for EL distros. Fedora contributors would still be able to contribute to EPEL, and CentOS contributors to make it up their standards.
Would that work for you?
+1. I liked the idea. It would save a lots of repeated efforts for building similar packages in CBS for SIGs.
I think we should we settle EPEL vs SIG stuff asap. Because this will help SIG and EPEL to grow and stay relevant.
Thanks, Lala
Regards, H. _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
Le 21/09/2015 16:12, Haïkel a écrit :
Hi,
Since the CentOS acquihire, there was a lot of discussion about EPEL's future. Since the FOSDEM meetup between Fedora/CentOS folks, there was little progress on that topic
Just enable EPEL in CBS, and that's all.
Remi.
P.S. and explain to SIG member how to contribute to EPEL.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 22/09/15 16:52, Remi Collet wrote:
Le 21/09/2015 16:12, Haïkel a écrit :
Hi,
Since the CentOS acquihire, there was a lot of discussion about EPEL's future. Since the FOSDEM meetup between Fedora/CentOS folks, there was little progress on that topic
Just enable EPEL in CBS, and that's all.
Remi.
P.S. and explain to SIG member how to contribute to EPEL. _______________________________________________
Well, adding so EPEL directly into cbs would then mean that all packages/repositories from cbs would have a hard require on epel too .. not something that target users would probably want (for packages conflicting/updating epel packages)
What I'd be in favor of (short-term) would be more or less something like this : a cbs-epel target and rebuild (and keep in sync) epel packages in that target. Then, SIGs users/maintainers can just "tag" the builds already there (and that they'd like to see landing in their SIG repo) : mash will then generate correct repositories with repo closure without a hard dep on epel itself.
That's just a "wild" idea (after a Rochefort beer ...), but I'd like to think a little bit more about that (and after having discussed with some people about the technical aspects)
- -- Fabian Arrotin The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org gpg key: 56BEC54E | twitter: @arrfab
-
Brian Stinson -
Dave Johansen -
Fabian Arrotin -
Haïkel -
Karsten Wade -
Kevin Fenzi -
Lalatendu Mohanty -
Remi Collet