Summary of the 2008-04-08 Packaging Committee meeting

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le lundi 12 mai 2008 à 13:31 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway a écrit :
> On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 19:17 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Le lundi 12 mai 2008 à 13:03 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway a écrit :
> > > On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 14:29 -0400, Deepak Bhole wrote:
> > > 
> > > > A page detailing the reasons for keeping the exception is now up on the
> > > > wiki:
> > > > 
> > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DeepakBhole/ReasonsForKeepingJPP
> > > 
> > > Deepak, thanks for writing that up. Seth Vidal has helped me come up
> > > with a technical solution that should meet the requirements described in
> > > your document.
> > > 
> > > http://skvidal.fedorapeople.org/misc/exclude-by-group/
> > > 
> > > This is a very simple yum plugin that enables the user to exclude by RPM
> > > Group tag. 
> > 
> > Uh, that's pretty hideous, I thought we were working hard at killing the
> > group tag altogether, not adding new deps on it. Plus before it works it
> > would require a full rebuild of the java repository to put the right
> > group on every package.
> 
> Yeah, but we'd want that rebuild anyways to drop the .jpp tag.

The fedora rebuilds won't change the group tag of the existing jpackage
rpms. And there's a lot more of those (with a lot less human and
non-human resources) JPackage-side.

>  I'm not
> convinced that this is any more "hideous" than the .jpp release naming
> exception (in fact, I think it is far nicer).

Just shows you're hopelessly biased. The only value of this proposal is
to kill the .foo tag (others have been using with no harm done), by
replacing it with a kludge (which only merit is it's so convoluted and
backwards it won't probably survive a month after its announce). Seth
delivered but I'm not sure the requirement level was to his usual
standard.

> > Can't yum use the Vendor tag instead? That wouldn't be such a kludge,
> > and I think Vendor already identifies a unique repository provider in
> > existing packages.
> 
> Unfortunately, in Fedora packages, Vendor gets set to Fedora Project for
> everything,

In other words, expediency prevailed over solid long-term design.

> which wouldn't help in excluding the Java JPackage derived
> packages living in Fedora.

I'm disappointed by the way this problem was handled. I'd like the
people who were so quick to repeatedly diss the Java people in public,
and who are asking of them a lot of work, to do them the courtesy of
applying the same high standards to themselves, that is to say:
– reach out to their communication forums (why should the effort
always be one-way)
— document properly in the wiki what are the exact drawbacks of
using .jpp (it's *still* nebulous to me at least)
– propose a solid long-term technical solution (pot, kettle, black, all
this public outrage to propose a kludgy kludge as 'solution')

We're not so quick to mandate mass rebuilds when we have to do them
ourselves.

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20080512/f4cd511d/attachment.sig>