[CentOS-devel] Proposal: Add pkg- prefix to package names in CentOS dist-git

On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 12:01 PM Brian Stinson <brian at bstinson.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2021, at 10:53, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 11:44 AM Brian Stinson <brian at bstinson.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 1, 2021, at 10:32, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > > * Josh Boyer:
> > > >
> > > > >> Gitlab has a repository aliasing mechanism.  It could be a gradual
> > > > >> transition for existing packages.
> > > > >
> > > > > No.  This is extremely excessive.  We already have namespaces, and the
> > > > > list of reserved names is already known.  Of that list, there is a
> > > > > single one today that actually has an RPM that overlaps.  Adding
> > > > > content to RHEL is not a wild west process, so we can control what our
> > > > > SRPMs are named as they are added going forward.
> > > >
> > > > Okay, so the prefix isn't going to fly.  The “+” problem is also more
> > > > widespread, and the prefix does not solve that at all.
> > > >
> > > > I checked the package addition process, and it actually flows through
> > > > CentOS these days (“centpkg import” is used), so it should prevent the
> > > > recurrence of the “tree” problem.  Unlike other parts of the tooling,
> > > > centpkg seems to know about the “+” rewriting (to “plus”), so that's not
> > > > going to help us to prevent future mistakes in that area, though.
> > > >
> > > > What should we do here?  We have a couple of packages that are basically
> > > > impossible to maintain in the present state in CentOS Stream.
> > > >
> > > > One possible way forward could be:
> > > >
> > > > * Rename the tree package (starting with Fedora).
> > > > * Rename all packages with + in their names (also in Fedora).
> > > > * Ban + in future source package names.
> > > > * For every REPO, the RPM spec file must be called REPO.spec, and the
> > > >   source RPM name must be REPO.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure how good RPM is at source package renaming, though.  If the
> > > > repository name and the .spec file name and source package name differ
> > > > (due to the “+” rewriting or the dump/restore thing), we end up with
> > > > tooling issues again (like we had with dump/restore).  If we rename the
> > > > package outright, it affects the binary packages as well, and might need
> > > > an exception at this point.
> > > >
> > > > My worry is that people have been saying “we'll deal with these few
> > > > exceptions manually”, but as far as I can tell, that is just not what's
> > > > happening.  RPM components that should be trivially to maintain are
> > > > suddenly very difficult.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Florian
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > CentOS-devel mailing list
> > > > CentOS-devel at centos.org
> > > > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
> > > >
> > >
> > > We should consider renaming the tree repository in Fedora and CentOS Stream/RHEL, and leave the + packages alone. We've asked for fixes in gitlab to support the proper naming including '+' characters.
> > >
> > > There are other source packages that don't match 1:1 with their dist-git repositories, so I'm not sure how much trouble a hard requirement would cause.
> > >
> >
> > At least for pagure, it might be worth changing the slug from /tree/
> > to /filelist/ for 6.0 so that this isn't a problem anymore for the
> > "tree" package...
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
> > _______________________________________________
> > CentOS-devel mailing list
> > CentOS-devel at centos.org
> > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
> >
>
> We'd probably still need to change the name of the tree repo. When we asked Gitlab about allowing that slug it was a no-go from their perspective.
>

I'm not surprised. But at least it doesn't have to be a problem for
Fedora anymore if I change it in pagure.



-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!