<div dir="ltr">That sounds like the right next step. Thanks, Brian! </div> <div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 5:33 PM Brian Bouterse <<a href="mailto:bbouters@redhat.com">bbouters@redhat.com</a>> wrote: </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">To get us started, instead of starting with a generic packaging repo, can we get Pulp's spec files generated and submitted to Fedora first? I made this Pulp issue to help track along that work: <a href="https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4414" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4414</a> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 3:39 PM Neal Gompa <<a href="mailto:ngompa13@gmail.com" target="_blank">ngompa13@gmail.com</a>> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 1:53 PM Patrick Creech <<a href="mailto:pcreech@redhat.com" target="_blank">pcreech@redhat.com</a>> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2019-02-12 at 12:03 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 11:55 AM Brian Bouterse <<a href="mailto:bbouters@redhat.com" target="_blank">bbouters@redhat.com</a>> > wrote: > > > > This identifies that packaging Pulp into Fedora is valuable. Thank > you for that. I've got a few questions to help us > > > > get there. > > > > > > > > What is the recommendation for where to keep the spec files for > these items? Is it directly in the Fedora infra? The > > > > Pulp upstream repos aren't supposed to contain packaging bits > anymore is my understanding. > > > > > > > > > > Spec files and other packaging specific data *must* reside in Fedora > > > Dist-Git: > <a href="https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_spec_maintenance_and_canonicity" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_spec_maintenance_and_canonicity</a> > > > > > > Spec files in upstream repos is up to the upstream, but Fedora > > > infrastructure cannot access them and cannot rely on them. > > > > I'm not quite ready to wade into the broader conversation yet.. > > > > But to clarify on this one point: > > > > Upstream can create a one size fits all spec file that conforms to > fedora's policies, and a copy of said spec file will > > need to be commited to fedora's dist git and the package in fedora will > be built from that dist git location. > > > > To ease maintenance in this case, this keeps upstream from having to > manage separate spec files in multiple locations. > > When an update in fedora is needed, the spec file can be copied mostly > as-is, iirc. > > > > There are other projects that do such, immediately my mind thinks of the > candlepin team's subman work. > > > > > > The DNF stack, Spacewalk clients, and snapd package maintenance works > in a similar manner to what you described. But it shouldn't be a big deal</blockquote></div>