[CentOS-devel] Unshipped -devel packages in CentOS Linux

Wed Nov 6 20:14:23 UTC 2019
Leon Fauster <leonfauster at googlemail.com>

Am 06.11.19 um 21:00 schrieb Karanbir Singh:
> On 06/11/2019 18:44, Pablo Sebastián Greco wrote:
>> El 6/11/19 a las 14:35, Brian Stinson escribió:
>>> I'd also like to discuss how we populate this repo/module. It would be
>>> easiest to just dump every unshipped package in and move on, but that
>>> doesn't help us track which of these packages are truly important
>>> outside of building the distro.  Shipping*everything*  also represents a
>>> larger content set to manage if lifecycle issues come up in the future.
>>> An alternative would be to store this definition in git (we'll need to
>>> do that anyways), and allow folks to make pull requests to include new
>>> content, shipping this as a separate repo would let us spin updates on
>>> demand.
>> I would love to see *Everything*, but it could be problematic with
>> modules like python36 (blacklisting all the python2 rpms) and python27
>> (blacklisting all the python3 rpms)
> we've got precidence here in the addons repo that was shipped in past
> versions, where content built but not shipped clearly upstream was
> avaialble.
> at the very least, content coming from srpms that have a corrosponding
> binary in the other 3 repos should ship by default.
> how much content are we talking about that comes from srpms that dont
> have a single component that ships in the main 3 repos ?
> Also, i would leave this repo enabled. there isnt anything conflicting
> with the distro rpms here is there ?

I think the repo name should be clearly communicate what it is, "addons"
seems for me misleading. Its not only about -devel packages, for
examples avahi-dnsconfd is build but unshipped. Therefore the name
should communicate something like "build but not shipped and therefore