@FESCo (and in parts maybe for the Board, too): How to handle packaging issues for EPEL?

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Michael Schwendt schrieb:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:38:25 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> there are more and more discussions about packaging issues in EPEL
>> (repotag, fedora-usermgmt) where people request EPEL-specific packaging
>> rules that are different from the ones used in Fedora, that got and get
>> defined by the Packaging Committee.
> It has not been decided on fedora-usermgmt before. Neither by FESCO, nor
> by the Packaging Committee. It remains an optional tool that is not
> mentioned in the guidelines.

But some people want to forbid it now, so seems we need a decision now.

> It has not been decided on "a repotag" before.

But some people want to enforce one now, so seems we need a decision now.

Side note: It seems a repotag is unwanted by the Packaging Committee
leader, so EPEL is just careful here and doesn't want to set facts
against the Committee with should deal with this. If they say "EPEL SIG
decides" then it's fine for me.

> Using %dist is still optional. And that is good.

+1

> If I understand the request correctly, there is the desire to make a repotag
> mandatory. When doing that, it would conflict with an optional %dist tag.

Why? It could be in the spec files as

Release: 1%{?dist}%{?rel}

or something like that.

> Even longer file names. Even more information that influences RPM version
> comparison. [...]

Agreed to this and parts of the other stuff that I stripped. That why I
asked the packaging committee to look into the issue:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-March/msg00079.html

Cu
thl