On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 5:33 PM Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 02:15:19PM -0800, Troy Dawson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 12:29 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 2:36 PM Stephen John Smoogen <smooge(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > My main job is working with Fedora Infrastructure, and we are trying to
work out how to handle:
> > >
> > >
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8558
> > >
> > > The problem is that various tools filter what packages can be branched
into Fedora see that libssh2 was in a module that RHEL shipped in 8.0 but it is no longer
in the release with 8.1.
> > >
> > > Do we need to make libssh2 a module?
> > > Should we allow libssh2 be branched as a 'bare' package in EPEL
proper?
> > > Other?
> > >
> >
> > Since libssh2 is being dropped from RHEL, I think we should just
> > permit it as a regular package in EPEL proper. That maximizes its
> > usefulness to everyone.
> >
>
> I second that.
> I don't think it matters if it was in a module or not. If it is no
> longer in RHEL8, then it should be permitted as a regular EPEL8
> package.
I agree, but... what about packages that are modules.
What does epel promise not to overlap with? Just bare rpms?
Any rpm in any modules also?
ie, would it have been ok to make a normal rpm of libssh2 before when it
was in a module?
My understanding is that the only main contract we're maintaining is
with bare RPMs. So technically, yes, it would have been okay to do so
before when it was in a module because we can't use that anyway
without pulling in the module as a dependency anyway, and for a lot of
reasons, it's probably a good idea to avoid that whenever possible to
maintain flexibility for downstream consumers.
--
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!