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

Wed Nov 6 20:26:08 UTC 2019
Pablo Sebastián Greco <pgreco at centosproject.org>

El 6/11/19 a las 17:18, Karanbir Singh escribió:
> On 06/11/2019 20:14, Leon Fauster via CentOS-devel wrote:
>> 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
>> unsupported".
> to me, addons communicates just that, and has existed in the past -
> also, nothing in CentOS is 'supported'.
Right, but normally things in CentOS are supported in RHEL, these 
packages don't fall into that category.