On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 11:00 AM Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com> wrote:
On 11/17/18 4:09 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> I'm afraid I'm still very unfamiliar with modules, but it does seem like
> this will be very central to how we deliver packages to EPEL-8. My
> initial questions are:
Yeah, I don't know them as well as I can, but can take a stab at
answering based on what I know. ;)
And yes, I agree modules will be key for epel8.
>
> - Can we "simply" extend the platform for current modules to cover
> RHEL-8? That way one could for example deliver octave 4.4 for both
> Fedora and EPEL-8 at the same time. The main issue that I see is
> preventing packages that already exist in RHEL-8 from making it in.
Yes, we hopefully can do that. However, they might need some adjustment
for epel8 differences.
The 'existing rhel8 packages' brings up a good point: Do we want to care
about that in epel8 modules? If we replace something thats in a module,
perhaps thats expected and ok, and just avoid replacing base packages?
*my opinion*
I think as long modules don't directly compete name and stream with
RHEL8's, then it should be ok to build and have as a module in EPEL8.
Example:
perl 5.26 (can't be in epel8)
perl 5.26.FavoriteFlag (can be in epel8)
or maybe
perl-FavoriteFlag 5.26 (can be in epel8)
As far as replacing base packages with modules. My opinion isn't very
stong, but here is what I think.
I'm against replacing BaseOS packages in modules.
I'm ok with replacing AppStream packages in modules.
> > - How do we build against the RHEL-8 modules? I see that RHEL-8 has two
> > perl and two php module streams:
> >
> > perl 5.24 minimal, default
> > perl 5.26 [d] minimal, default [d]
> > php 7.1 devel, minimal, default [d]
> > php 7.2 [d] devel, minimal, default [d]
> >
> > presumably if I want to builld say perl-Config-Simple for EPEL-8 we'll
> > need/want to build it for both module streams? How does one go about
> > attaching that package to the RHEL-8 module? Or will we need separate
> > EPEL versions of the modules?
>
> If you are building a non modular package, right now you cannot build
> against modular packages at all. This is what the 'ursa-major' app that
> releng/fesco are discussing enabling will allow for. Until thats setup,
> non modular builds can't use any modules.
>
> If you are building a modular package, you specify in the module yaml
> file exactly what modules you are building against and what version.
> > - Do we need to distinguish between EPEL packages that will be treated
> > much like BaseOS packages in RHEL (very long lived and stable), and ones
> > that are like the AppStream (shorter lifetimes)? Do we just want to
> > treat everything like AppStream packages?
> >
https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/8-...
>
> I'd say everything like appstream.
> >
> >
> > Some of what I wrote just might not make sense due to my limited
> > understanding of modules.
>
> I could also be wrong above, so hopefully if so someone will correct me.
>
> kevin
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproj...