[Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 for Fedora

[Neal Gompa]

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 1:53 PM Patrick Creech <pcreech at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2019-02-12 at 12:03 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 11:55 AM Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com> 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: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_spec_maintenance_and_canonicity
> >
> > 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.




--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!