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. --Brian