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. --Brian