On Sun October 12 2008, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 03:24:21PM +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> > Why do you have to do it by yourself? You can recruit interested people
> > to do so. And in case you are by yourself, you do not need such a complex
> > setup. You only need a script to run mock, rpm --addsign, rsync and
> > createrepo.
>
> What you describe doesn't looks like a fedora LTS buildsystem. You are
> describing how I maintain my personal repo (though no mock, rpmbuild is
> enough) but this is rather different from having a real infrastructure.
> And I am not interested in maintaining all the packages in @core and
> @base, so definitly need more people. Not to mention that I don't have
> anything else than an i386.

Your only argument against setting up your own infrastructure is, that you
cannot do it on your own. You agree that you need additional people, so this
argument does not count.

Regards,
Till
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 03:38:12PM +0200, Till Maas wrote:
>
> Your only argument against setting up your own infrastructure is, that you
> cannot do it on your own. You agree that you need additional people, so this
> argument does not count.

My argument is that it is a lot of work to set up an infrastructure. I
wouldn't want to contribute a LTS project where the infrastructure is to
be done, while I would happily maintain packages and even drive the
project if an existing infrastructure is used. Now if there are people
who have the infrastructure, and it is similar with the fedora
infrastructure, and want packagers I'll join.

--
Pat

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

* Patrice Dumas [12/10/2008 14:43] :
>
> I really can't see how you can say that. Look at the setup of rpmfusion,

Rpmfusion chose to duplicate the Fedora infrastructure (bugzilla, CVS+FAS,
mailman, the works). This is much more difficult and goes above and beyond
the requirements for a third party repo to get started.

> for example, it is clearly not something I can undertake myself.

Once again, if you do not have the manpower to setup an infrastructure,
you do not have the manpower to support @code + @base . This is why
you need to start by building a community.

Emmanuel

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

On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 04:21:55PM +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> * Patrice Dumas [12/10/2008 14:43] :
> >
> Rpmfusion chose to duplicate the Fedora infrastructure (bugzilla, CVS+FAS,
> mailman, the works). This is much more difficult and goes above and beyond
> the requirements for a third party repo to get started.

It doesn't go beyond the requirements for a fedora LTS. If fedora LTS
isn't on par with fedora from the infrastrructure point of view, it is
not worth pursuing.

> Once again, if you do not have the manpower to setup an infrastructure,
> you do not have the manpower to support @code + @base . This is why
> you need to start by building a community.

A community of packagers. Not a community for infrastructure. This is
very different.

--
Pat

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

On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 11:12:38PM -0400, Robert Locke wrote:
> What I think is lacking (but seem to be being worked on), is a
> convenient "upgrade" process within the "family". So that if I use
> Fedora 9 or 10, that I could "in-place" upgrade to RHEL/CentOS 6 when it
> comes out.

You could always pass "upgradeany" to Anaconda to upgrade other
distros, but this isn't officially supported.

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

* Patrice Dumas [12/10/2008 16:29] :
>
> It doesn't go beyond the requirements for a fedora LTS. If fedora LTS
> isn't on par with fedora from the infrastrructure point of view, it is
> not worth pursuing.

At which point we're back to making excuses for not actually doing
anything and demanding that people who aren't interested in Fedora LTS
do the needed work.

This is insane and if everybody had that atitude, half the Fedora SIGs
would never have seen the light of day.

Emmanuel

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

On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 04:43:38PM +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> * Patrice Dumas [12/10/2008 16:29] :
> >
> > It doesn't go beyond the requirements for a fedora LTS. If fedora LTS
> > isn't on par with fedora from the infrastrructure point of view, it is
> > not worth pursuing.
>
> At which point we're back to making excuses for not actually doing
> anything and demanding that people who aren't interested in Fedora LTS
> do the needed work.

Which work? Not shutting down builders and other infras for the EOL
branches? In my proposal I propose to find somebody to do the signing,
which is the only part that requires work -- unless I am missing
something.

I am not competent in infrastructure building nor have I the time to
lead a project which includes building an infrastructure. But I can lead
a project targeted at packaging the core of fedora for LTS -- but only
the packaging part.

> This is insane and if everybody had that atitude, half the Fedora SIGs
> would never have seen the light of day.

Most of the SIGs don't need specific infrastructure. The analogy is
EPEL, but EPEL got support.

--
Pat

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

Emmanuel Seyman wrote:

* Patrice Dumas [12/10/2008 14:43] :
I really can't see how you can say that. Look at the setup of rpmfusion,


Rpmfusion chose to duplicate the Fedora infrastructure (bugzilla, CVS+FAS,
mailman, the works). This is much more difficult and goes above and beyond
the requirements for a third party repo to get started.


for example, it is clearly not something I can undertake myself.


Once again, if you do not have the manpower to setup an infrastructure,
you do not have the manpower to support @code + @base . This is why
you need to start by building a community.


But the first question should be why a separate community is necessary.
Why is it not possible for one of fedora's goals to be to provide a
clean transition to RHEL or Centos at the end of certain development
cycles, at which point EPEL/Rpmfusion, etc. would be unnecessary as
separate entities since that fedora cycle's repository would be directly
usable as-is and would simply need to be maintained instead of the
various 3rd party versions that have been necessary to fill this void?


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

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

* Patrice Dumas [12/10/2008 16:51] :
>
> Which work? Not shutting down builders and other infras for the EOL
> branches?

Not just not shutting them down but actively maintaining them, which
would require more work than maintaining the non-EOL branches.

I'm sorry but, until there's a community committed to actually doing
the work, asking that infrastructure be created/adapted/maintained is an
unreasonable request, IMHO.

Emmanuel

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

Les Mikesell wrote:
> But the first question should be why a separate community is necessary.
> Why is it not possible for one of fedora's goals to be to provide a
> clean transition to RHEL or Centos at the end of certain development
> cycles,

That point would have been FC6 alpha (or something like that) for RHEL 5.
So you would have an alpha release from which you could do the transition.

Everything (or mostly everything) else in FC6 after that point is newer than
the stuff you'd find in RHEL. How do you want to switch from there to RHEL?

> at which point EPEL/Rpmfusion, etc. would be unnecessary as
> separate entities since that fedora cycle's repository would be directly
> usable as-is and would simply need to be maintained instead of the
> various 3rd party versions that have been necessary to fill this void?

No, it wouldn't as stuff probably would require newer versions of base
packages than are available in RHEL.

I do not think that what you suggest is even remotely possible given the
development cycles of Fedora and the ones of Red Hat Enterprise.

And I don't think it is necessary.

Ralph--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list