FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > EPEL Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 12-07-2008, 05:07 AM
Ray Van Dolson
 
Default EPEL only packages? Review process?

Hi folks;

I recently submitted a package for review that is intended for EPEL
only:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474430

Reason being that this python module is included already in Fedora, but
is not present in RHEL 4 or 5.

There wasn't really a procedure for this type of thing, so the product
I filed it under was the standard "rawhide".

Anything I should perhaps do differently in this case or am I going
about it in the right way?

Thanks!
Ray

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 
Old 12-07-2008, 09:42 AM
Paul Howarth
 
Default EPEL only packages? Review process?

On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 22:07:43 -0800
Ray Van Dolson <rayvd@bludgeon.org> wrote:

> Hi folks;
>
> I recently submitted a package for review that is intended for EPEL
> only:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474430
>
> Reason being that this python module is included already in Fedora,
> but is not present in RHEL 4 or 5.
>
> There wasn't really a procedure for this type of thing, so the product
> I filed it under was the standard "rawhide".
>
> Anything I should perhaps do differently in this case or am I going
> about it in the right way?

Isn't the procedure for this to ask the Fedora maintainer if they're
interested in maintaining an EPEL branch for the package - if so, to
branch and build it possibly with you as comaintainer, if not, add you
as maintainer of a new EPEL branch?

Paul.

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 
Old 12-07-2008, 02:57 PM
Ray Van Dolson
 
Default EPEL only packages? Review process?

On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 10:42:41AM +0000, Paul Howarth wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 22:07:43 -0800
> Ray Van Dolson <rayvd@bludgeon.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi folks;
> >
> > I recently submitted a package for review that is intended for EPEL
> > only:
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474430
> >
> > Reason being that this python module is included already in Fedora,
> > but is not present in RHEL 4 or 5.
> >
> > There wasn't really a procedure for this type of thing, so the product
> > I filed it under was the standard "rawhide".
> >
> > Anything I should perhaps do differently in this case or am I going
> > about it in the right way?
>
> Isn't the procedure for this to ask the Fedora maintainer if they're
> interested in maintaining an EPEL branch for the package - if so, to
> branch and build it possibly with you as comaintainer, if not, add you
> as maintainer of a new EPEL branch?
>

Sorry, I should have clarified better. The uuid module I'm packaging
above is part of _python_ in Fedora (2.5 and newer?).

So this module doesn't fall under those guidelines...

Ray

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 
Old 12-07-2008, 03:17 PM
Dan Horák
 
Default EPEL only packages? Review process?

Ray Van Dolson p*še v Ne 07. 12. 2008 v 07:57 -0800:
> On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 10:42:41AM +0000, Paul Howarth wrote:
> > On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 22:07:43 -0800
> > Ray Van Dolson <rayvd@bludgeon.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi folks;
> > >
> > > I recently submitted a package for review that is intended for EPEL
> > > only:
> > >
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474430
> > >
> > > Reason being that this python module is included already in Fedora,
> > > but is not present in RHEL 4 or 5.
> > >
> > > There wasn't really a procedure for this type of thing, so the product
> > > I filed it under was the standard "rawhide".
> > >
> > > Anything I should perhaps do differently in this case or am I going
> > > about it in the right way?
> >
> > Isn't the procedure for this to ask the Fedora maintainer if they're
> > interested in maintaining an EPEL branch for the package - if so, to
> > branch and build it possibly with you as comaintainer, if not, add you
> > as maintainer of a new EPEL branch?
> >
>
> Sorry, I should have clarified better. The uuid module I'm packaging
> above is part of _python_ in Fedora (2.5 and newer?).
>
> So this module doesn't fall under those guidelines...

Then the review process is the same as for Fedora, but you ask only for
EL branches, devel branch must exist and is created automatically. Put a
note in the review request that the package is going only into EPEL, so
the reviewer can check whether it builds on EL instead of Fedora, etc.


Dan


_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 
Old 12-07-2008, 06:02 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default EPEL only packages? Review process?

On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 07:57:37AM -0800, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
>
> Sorry, I should have clarified better. The uuid module I'm packaging
> above is part of _python_ in Fedora (2.5 and newer?).
>
> So this module doesn't fall under those guidelines...

I have done such a package for tetex-lineno which was included in
fedora package already. It is better, in my opinion, if you have
Obsoletes added in fedora packages and in later RHEL package that
obsolete your package. But it may be a lengthy process...

--
Pat

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 
Old 12-08-2008, 09:41 PM
Ray Van Dolson
 
Default EPEL only packages? Review process?

On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 08:02:25PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 07:57:37AM -0800, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, I should have clarified better. The uuid module I'm packaging
> > above is part of _python_ in Fedora (2.5 and newer?).
> >
> > So this module doesn't fall under those guidelines...
>
> I have done such a package for tetex-lineno which was included in
> fedora package already. It is better, in my opinion, if you have
> Obsoletes added in fedora packages and in later RHEL package that
> obsolete your package. But it may be a lengthy process...
>

Would Fedora/RHEL be willing to add an Obsoletes for an EPEL package?
Were you able to get an Obsoletes included for your package?

I was just planning to make my package require Python >= 2.3 and <=
2.5. I wonder how this would effect an eventual upgrade from EL5 to
EL6 when it comes out.

Thanks,
Ray

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 
Old 12-08-2008, 10:14 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default EPEL only packages? Review process?

On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 02:41:18PM -0800, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
>
> Would Fedora/RHEL be willing to add an Obsoletes for an EPEL package?
> Were you able to get an Obsoletes included for your package?

In fedora, easily. In RHEL, I still don't know if it is done, but I
filled a bug. (In both case, Jindrich is the maintainer, but it seems
that changing something in RHEL is much more complicated).

> I was just planning to make my package require Python >= 2.3 and <=
> 2.5. I wonder how this would effect an eventual upgrade from EL5 to
> EL6 when it comes out.

It will lead to a conflict unless something special is going on.

If your package is for EL-5, then having the obsolete in RHEL6 shouldn't
be impossible, since if it is in fedora, it should be inherited by RHEL6
package, if it branches from a a fedora package with the obsolete.

--
Pat

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:18 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org