On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 01:41:25PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
I'd like to put forth a proposal here, comments or other opinions very welcome. ;)
In EPEL4/5 we have a policy of: "EPEL won't ship anything that is in the Advanced Platform set of packages". This is easy to check, as all these have src.rpms on mirrors. This includes:
JBEAP JBEWS JBWFK os RHCERT RHDirServ RHDOCS RHEIPA RHEMRG RHHC RHNPROXY RHNSAT RHNTOOLS RHUI RHWAS SJIS
(see: http://mirrors.tummy.com/pub/ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/5Ser... )
For EPEL6, we can't do this as their is no Advanced Platform, and the secondary channels don't exist as src.rpms. We have:
6Server 6ComputeNode 6Client 6Workstation
and all the src.rpms in a single dir under those.
Additionally we have the following complications:
Some packages only have binary rpms shipped for some arches. Ie, the entire virt stack is x86_64. There's no client/workstation stuff in ppc64. There's no java in ppc64.
Some packages only have subpackages shipped in some arches (ie, pacemaker-cts and pacemaker-docs are shipped in server-optional, but the main pacemaker binary rpm is only in the HighAvailability channel.
I would like to propose the following:
EPEL6 will not ship any packages that have src.rpms on public mirrors under 6* directories with the following exception: If the binary rpm is only shipped in some arches in RHEL, EPEL may ship that exact same version (note that EPEL maintainer must keep up exactly with the RHEL src.rpm).
So, this would leave us with:
someone could maintain java in EPEL and build the exact src.rpm version. If it took mods to work, I would say we should just not do so and excludearch our java stuff.
folks could push packages that are x86_64 only into epel, but should keep them exactly the same as the rhel src.rpm.
Items in other channels are fair game to ship in EPEL6.
Thoughts?
I don't 100% like this but it seems like the best we can do with a messy situation. The only thought I have is we might want to modify some of this after we see what CentOS does. For instance, if they ship the virt stack on x86 but do have to make modifications to make it work there we should consider rebuilding with their packages or rebuilding with packages that are NEVR lower than the RHEL packages but include the CentOS changes.
-Toshio