Heads-up: brand new RPM version about to hit rawhide
Toshio Kuratomi
a.badger at gmail.com
Sun Jul 13 22:24:11 UTC 2008
Jesse Keating wrote:
>
>
> 2008/7/12 Doug Ledford <dledford at redhat.com <mailto:dledford at redhat.com>>:
>
> On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 22:41 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
>
> > Unfortunatly I live in reality where many upstreams post process the
> > scm checkout so reliance on the scm alone is not possible.
>
> And this is at least partially our own fault. For instance, the fact
> that upstream opensm, libibcommon, libibumad, libibmad, librdmacm,
> libibcm, and a few others from the OFED package set run autogen.sh is
> because someone in Fedora told me to tell them to. I originally told
> them not to and I was "corrected". So it seems a bit fishy to me to use
> that as a reason that we can't use an SCM checkout, we created our own
> problem here, I would think we should be able to solve our own problem.
>
> And that gets to my next point, which really is that people are getting
> caught up in how things are (like processing with autogen.sh), and
> aren't considering if things *must* be that way. For example, you can't
> really clone a subversion repository. You can check it out, but commits
> have to go back to the central repo. This means we would have a hard
> time dealing with subversion upstream sources. However, as a possible
> policy implementation, we could contact upstream and request that the
> fedora package maintainers be given their own branches in the upstream
> repo, and that they have full write access on those branches, and the
> package maintainer could then merge over specific updates from the
> upstream primary branches into the fedora branches as we decided to
> upgrade to a particular release. We could then request the ability to
> rsync the actual repo to our own servers so we would always have our own
> copy should upstream decide to implode. So, there are ways we could
> *make* a subversion upstream work, but it's not pretty.
>
I'd *much* rather see us decide to stick with tarballs if upstream is
using an svn repository. We'd need to support tarballs for cvs
repositories, non-version controlled upstreams, and other random stuff
so there's no need to build a Rube Goldberg machine simply for svn
repositories.
-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20080713/29df251e/attachment.sig>
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list