Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> We have been struggling with a issue in EPEL
> ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL ) for quite some time, and I
> thought I would ask the folks here for thoughts on what the best way
> forward might be.
> Background: EPEL provides add on packages for RHEL/CentOS/etc.
> It uses Fedora Packaging Guidelines and procedures.
> It never provides a package when RHEL provides it already in it's
> RHEL-AP package set. EPEL strives to provide an update stream that
> never provides incompatible upgrades. Ie, if something was installed
> and working it should keep working after an update.
> Problem: For the majority of packages, there is no problem and we are
> fine. However, for some small subset of our packages, upstreams provide
> incompatible updates. This leaves us in a hard place. ;(
> mediawiki - changes database schema and other things on upgrade,
> requiring manual scripts and backups/restores.
> rdiff-backup - newer versions can't talk to older versions, so if epel
> gets upgraded, you must upgrade all your rdiff-backup instances in
> order to keep backing them up.
> moin - newer versions have script or database changes that make
> unattended upgrades impossible.
> nagios - Newer versions have incomptible config, requiring manual
> tweaking in order to keep running after upgrade.
> (I'm sure there are others).
> Possible solutions:
> - Currently we do nothing. Those packages sit there with their old old
> versions and get only very limited updates. Anyone installing them
> now asks why they are so old or out of date. We just wait for RHEL6
> and hope.
> - Provide a 'slipstream' repo. We either keep providing the old version
> in the main repo, or drop it if there are security issues. We provide
> a newer incomptible version in the slipstream repo. This repo has big
> warnings that updates in it could be incompatible and need manual
> attention, and is off by default. (ie, they have to enable it). This
> means another branch in cvs, more rel-eng time to manage, etc.
> - Provide packages and reviews for the new version. ie, 'mediawiki18-'
> This would be a newer version that is incomptible with the base one
> provided. Could we use Conflicts here? Or would we need to require
> that any "forward compatibilty" package here does not conflict with
> the base package? This means we have a small number of new reviews,
> new packages. It also means that people who don't know to look for it
> will not see it until someone tells them to install that version
> instead of the base version. It also means we accumulate these over
> time and have to EOL them somehow.
> - Your more clever solution here.
> There's no good answer here, but mainly I wanted to see what folks
> thought about the packaging the new version as a seperate package.
> Kinda like fedora compat packages, except the newer version.
> Thoughts? Comments?
> packaging mailing list
Funny, the 3rd option is what I'm trying to do with Drupal.
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
packaging mailing list