Hi FPC members,
I would like to propose that we eliminate the jpp naming exception.
I think that Bill Nottingham summarized the issue nicely:
<notting> ok, as far as I can see: <notting> jpackage wants (the equivalent of) repotags <notting> we do not support repotags in fedora <notting> we have grandfathered in a %{release} hack for jpacakge for a while <notting> we'd like to get rid of that <notting> if they're going to insist that anything done to get rid of that is unacceptable because it's not a repotag... oh well <notting> but yum-priorities is a 'better' solution for repotags than Group-hackery :)
I would agree with this assessment, and accordingly, I would like us to vote to eliminate the jpp naming exception during tomorrows meeting. Bring your flame-retardant underwear, but I would like to put this to bed.
A few points to keep in mind:
1. This is solely about the naming exception in Fedora, not in any other repositories. 2. We do not permit repotags in any other scenario in Fedora. 3. Using the yum-priorities plugin permits weighting a third party repository over Fedora for packages.
As usual, FESCo will have to ratify this.
Thanks in advance,
~spot
On Monday, 19 May 2008 at 20:20, Tom spot Callaway wrote: [...]
I would agree with this assessment, and accordingly, I would like us to vote to eliminate the jpp naming exception during tomorrows meeting. Bring your flame-retardant underwear, but I would like to put this to bed.
As this is important, and since I might not make it to the meeting tomorrow (or at least be late), let me post my vote for the record: +1.
Regards, R.
On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 14:20 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
I would agree with this assessment, and accordingly, I would like us to vote to eliminate the jpp naming exception during tomorrows meeting. Bring your flame-retardant underwear, but I would like to put this to bed.
While I'm not in the Fedora Packaging Committee anymore, I do have some history with this little bit of goo. I agree with spot and notting in that we've done our due dilligance to provide alternatives to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DeepakBhole/ReasonsForKeepingJPP and if jpackage doesn't like those, really that's on them to fix now. As far as Fedora users who may also be jpackage users there are more deterministic and reliable methods to achieve the technical goals listed above. At the end of the day that is who we have to service, the Fedora users.
<notting> <snip> using repository priorities (via yum-priorities) solves the first three points on that page entirely. #4 is politics. #5 is a fragile metric, and really needs to be solved by developer<->developer conversation, rather than by package naming
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org