On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Jeff Johnson <n3npq@mac.com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 5, 2008, at 1:15 PM, Kenneth Porter wrote:
>> Who in this case is the master? Where can we find the policy declaration,
>> and the people responsible for it? Are they aware of the side effects?

When wearing my Fedora Tester hat, I often check the Guidelines :
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
Joe, and his high-and-mighty-rawhideness, also seems to directly
conflict with %{dist} tag use :
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag

On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Jeff Johnson <n3npq@mac.com> wrote:
> The rawhide *.spec is targeted at rawhide, not everywhere, because of the
> branch
> structure in use by Fedora. That has nothing whatsoever to do with whether
> Fedora
> is "suicidal" or "RPM sux!", there's a perfectly obvious engineering
> explanation for
> why the RFE was declined.

Then the Fedora build structure is severely flawed. In other words, we
"dogs" have dysfunctional "masters". Come on team - we should practice
like we play, right? :-)

jerry

--
"Years of Academy training... wasted!" - Buzz Lightyear
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:43 PM -0500 Jerry Amundson
<jamundso@gmail.com> wrote:



https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag


Some interesting text at the bottom of that page, justifying exclusion of
RPMForge's disttags:



RPMForge precedes the distribution value with a numeric value, designed
to assist in upgrades between versions of Red Hat Linux, Red Hat
Enterprise Linux, and Fedora. I really don't think that an upgrade path
between RHEL and Fedora is viable, or something that we should attempt to
promote. If Fedora used the same dist tags, we'd be implying that there
was support for upgrading between drastically different distributions. It
also adds an extra layer of complexity to the Release field, confusing
users and new packagers.


Is not RHEL (and, by extension, CentOS) a cherry-picked snapshot of Fedora?
Will the next RHEL not be some slice of Fedora? If RHEL comes from Fedora,
then at some point in time the current RHEL will need to be upgradable to
some extraction of Fedora.

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008, Kenneth Porter wrote:

On Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:43 PM -0500 Jerry Amundson
<jamundso@gmail.com> wrote:



https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag


Some interesting text at the bottom of that page, justifying exclusion of
RPMForge's disttags:


Is not RHEL (and, by extension, CentOS) a cherry-picked snapshot of Fedora?
Will the next RHEL not be some slice of Fedora? If RHEL comes from Fedora,
then at some point in time the current RHEL will need to be upgradable to
some extraction of Fedora.


Please let foreign project practices not be argued here. ...
again ... for what seems like the 20th time.


Fedora has its views, and RPMForge its. Neither is CentOS.
CentOS just replicates an upstream's free bits. ONCE
RELEASED. No sense in reading tea leaves here.


-- Russ herrold
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

R P Herrold wrote:



https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag


Some interesting text at the bottom of that page, justifying exclusion
of RPMForge's disttags:


Is not RHEL (and, by extension, CentOS) a cherry-picked snapshot of
Fedora? Will the next RHEL not be some slice of Fedora? If RHEL comes
from Fedora, then at some point in time the current RHEL will need to
be upgradable to some extraction of Fedora.


Please let foreign project practices not be argued here. ... again ...
for what seems like the 20th time.


Fedora has its views, and RPMForge its. Neither is CentOS. CentOS just
replicates an upstream's free bits. ONCE RELEASED. No sense in reading
tea leaves here.


It doesn't matter who does it or where - making something that is not
inherently backwards compatible is bound to cause pain.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Les Mikesell wrote:
> It doesn't matter who does it or where - making something that is not
> inherently backwards compatible is bound to cause pain.

As does making something which has to be backwards compatible all the
time.

EOT.

Ralph
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008, Ralph Angenendt wrote:


Les Mikesell wrote:

It doesn't matter who does it or where - making something that is not
inherently backwards compatible is bound to cause pain.


As does making something which has to be backwards compatible all the
time.


Exactly, both comments conjured a smile on my face

--
-- dag wieers, dag@centos.org, http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Aug 5, 2008, at 6:06 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:


On Tue, 5 Aug 2008, Ralph Angenendt wrote:


Les Mikesell wrote:
It doesn't matter who does it or where - making something that is
not

inherently backwards compatible is bound to cause pain.


As does making something which has to be backwards compatible all the
time.


Exactly, both comments conjured a smile on my face



While I'm happy to see a smile on yer face, and backward compatibility
is incredibly important (you are one of the few who understands that
importance),


*BUT*

I'm forced to point out that the engineering changes that led to the
creation of perl-devel
packaging are quite sound. The perl package always was a messy
mixture of modules

and other "stuff", pretending otherwise is foolish.

One needs to balance fixes against compatibility on a case by case
basis. No one rule, or one policy, can be generally applied.

73 de Jeff -- who really doesn't wish to be an apologetic advocate of
Fedora "suicide"


_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Hi,

On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 11:10:35AM -0700, Kenneth Porter wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:43 PM -0500 Jerry Amundson
> <jamundso@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag
>
> Some interesting text at the bottom of that page, justifying exclusion of
> RPMForge's disttags:
>
>> RPMForge precedes the distribution value with a numeric value, designed
>> to assist in upgrades between versions of Red Hat Linux, Red Hat
>> Enterprise Linux, and Fedora. I really don't think that an upgrade path
>> between RHEL and Fedora is viable, or something that we should attempt to
>> promote. If Fedora used the same dist tags, we'd be implying that there
>> was support for upgrading between drastically different distributions. It
>> also adds an extra layer of complexity to the Release field, confusing
>> users and new packagers.
>
> Is not RHEL (and, by extension, CentOS) a cherry-picked snapshot of
> Fedora? Will the next RHEL not be some slice of Fedora? If RHEL comes
> from Fedora, then at some point in time the current RHEL will need to be
> upgradable to some extraction of Fedora.

The above text refers to making CentOS5 say be between FC6 and F7. The
disttags like 0.fc6, 1.el5, 2.f7 (just examples, the real ones look a
bit different) ensure that FC6 < EL5 < F7 in rpm semantics.

What the text says is that RHEL does not want to be considered as a
linear succession to Fedora and a upcoming Fedora release a succession
to this, but rather as a fork from FC6 with its own evolution that
didn't necessarily flow back to F7.

Also RHEL/CentOS/SL/etc are a subset of Fedora, so a larger FC6
install will not fully upgrade to CentOS5.

In general while it is quite possible to upgrade (or sidegrade?) from
CentOS to Fedora and the other way around, the general approach should
be a fresh install when doing that.

Other than that I think Fedora and RHEL clearly accept their
intertwined relationship. Neither could exist w/o the other.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008, Jeff Johnson wrote:


On Aug 5, 2008, at 6:06 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008, Ralph Angenendt wrote:

> Les Mikesell wrote:
> > It doesn't matter who does it or where - making something that is not
> > inherently backwards compatible is bound to cause pain.
>
> As does making something which has to be backwards compatible all the

> time.

Exactly, both comments conjured a smile on my face



While I'm happy to see a smile on yer face, and backward compatibility
is incredibly important (you are one of the few who understands that
importance),


*BUT*

I'm forced to point out that the engineering changes that led to the creation
of perl-devel
packaging are quite sound. The perl package always was a messy mixture of
modules

and other "stuff", pretending otherwise is foolish.

One needs to balance fixes against compatibility on a case by case
basis. No one rule, or one policy, can be generally applied.


You are misreading the smile !

But I feel no urge to explain, maybe it will come up next year in a pub in Brussels ;-)

--
-- dag wieers, dag@centos.org, http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Aug 5, 2008, at 8:47 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:


On Tue, 5 Aug 2008, Jeff Johnson wrote:





You are misreading the smile !

But I feel no urge to explain, maybe it will come up next year in a
pub in Brussels ;-)




No need to explain, -ENOCONTEXT is a valid errno ;-)

See ya next year!

73 de Jeff
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel