[Pulp-dev] Pulp Packaging Redesign

[Brian Bouterse]

@pcreech, +1 to all this. Let us know when we can help move/renamed repos
(etc) in the Pulp org. I think both @mhrivnak and I have the org level
perms.

@ichimonji10: I wrote a story for us to create a packaging guide here:
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3092


On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Jeremy Audet <jaudet at redhat.com> wrote:

> > The goal here is to move release engineering content out of the project
> repos and into something purpose built for release engineering, decoupling
> the rpm generation process from the python codebase while also helping aid
> in the consumption of pulp bits for various downstream projects.
>
> What's this? Loose coupling? Single responsibility principle? Say no more!
> I'm on board.
>
> More seriously, though, I would love to see the level of complexity
> surrounding Pulp's release engineering reduced. If I was to try packaging
> up Pulp for distribution on some other Linux distribution as in independent
> third party, I'd quickly feel overwhelmed by how the various bits and
> pieces are spread across all of the pulp and pulp_* repos,
> pulp/pulp_packaging, pulp/packaging (and all of its branches!), etc. And I
> say this as someone who's been around the product full-time for a couple
> years now. This proposal seems sane, it targets those concerns, and it
> comes from someone who's highly qualified. If QE needs to do anything, say
> so.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20171023/faf55f5c/attachment.htm>