[scl.org] Component name in non-RH dist-gits

[Honza Horak]

On 02/17/2015 09:21 AM, Remi Collet wrote:
> Le 17/02/2015 08:52, Honza Horak a écrit :
>> I'm thinking about repositories and branches structure in CentOS a bit
>> again.
>>
>> Currently, there are two ways how components names and branches are
>> maintained in SCL world:
>>
>> A) collection name in branch name
>> we use component name without prefix in dist-git and branches for
>> specific collections internally in RH, so e.g. mariadb has branches for
>> mariadb55-*, rh-mariadb100-*, etc..
>>
>> B) collection name in dist-git repository name
>> For RHSCL RPMs that are automatically imported into
>> https://git.centos.org [1], components *use* prefix in repository names
>> and static set of branches. For example mariadb55-mariadb component
>> includes branches 'master' and 'c7' [1]. This way seems easier for
>> dist-git administration and also seems to be preferred way in Fedora [2].
>>
>> Since we can always add remote branches in (B) and merge/cherry-pick
>> from those as easy as we can in (A), my question is:
>>
>> "Are there any practical advantages of (A)?"
>>
>> I don't see any, but I see some advantages of (B) though, since it seems
>> to be more consumable to use the same approach (B) in all public repos
>> and only use (A) internally only for historic reasons.
>
> (A) make sense to me, as the same package/spec can be used in various
> collections.
>
> Ex: php-pear, various branches
> 	=> rhel-#
> 	=> rhscl-##-php54-rhel-#
> 	=> rhscl-##-php55-rhel-#
> 	=> rhscl-##-rh-php56-rhel-#
>
> With (B) we need 4 repositories
> 	=> php-pear
> 	=> php54-php-pear
> 	=> php55-php-pear
> 	=> rh-php56-php-pear
>
> Of course, for historical reason (packages pulled from Fedora where SCL
> are not allowed), base packages are really different from SCL packages.
> But SCL packages are really similar in the different collections.
>
> But (B) is not really a problem, in fact I mostly never have to
> cherry-pick from different branches.
>
> But in some other repo, I use "exactly" the same spec for all targets.

Thanks for the feedback.

One aspect I haven't realized is that with (A) we'd keep information 
which collections the package is included in. With (B) we wouldn't be 
able to say that e.g. boost package is used in collections foo42, bar24, 
... This seems to be quite useful information.

Honza

>
>
> Remi
>
>>
>> Does it make sense to you as well?
>> [no response means yes to me :) ]
>>
>> [1] https://git.centos.org/tree/rpms!mariadb55-mariadb/c7
>> [2]
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Software_Collection_Macros
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Honza
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SCLorg mailing list
>> SCLorg at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/sclorg
>
>