To scratch my own itch I've packaged EPEL repos for Fedora. I've decided to use the existing epel-release component for this (but I am OK to get a different name, such as epel-repos).
See https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-release/pull-request/9 And https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1852583
Package review and any other feedback is appreciated.
(Side note: I'm using the hyperkitty web interface to send this email, as I cannot connect to my email from Thunderbird, sorry if the email is somewhat weird.)
Thanks,
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 2:46 PM Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com wrote:
To scratch my own itch I've packaged EPEL repos for Fedora. I've decided to use the existing epel-release component for this (but I am OK to get a different name, such as epel-repos).
See https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-release/pull-request/9 And https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1852583
Package review and any other feedback is appreciated.
I'm not sure this is a good idea. Also, queries and figuring out dependencies still requires having RHEL/CentOS repositories, which this package would not provide.
Some time ago, I wrote rpmdistro-repoquery wrapper around dnf repoquery[1] for doing stuff like this. That might help for you too.
[1]: https://pagure.io/rpmdistro-repoquery
On 30. 06. 20 20:57, Neal Gompa wrote:
I'm not sure this is a good idea. Also, queries and figuring out dependencies still requires having RHEL/CentOS repositories, which this package would not provide.
That is a known limitation, but I wouldn't say this makes it "not a good idea". Would you mind telling why so consider it bad? I like the repos packaged, so I don't have to explain to others how to get them. This way, it's a magnitude easier. It solves a problem I have.
Some time ago, I wrote rpmdistro-repoquery wrapper around dnf repoquery[1] for doing stuff like this. That might help for you too.
I've actually seen this (when mentioned couple week ago somewhere on a mailing list) and while powerful, it was a bit more complicated for me to use. For my own problems, having the epel repos is what I need. rpmdistro-repoquery wrapper can optionally use the packaged repos as well if desired (but doesn't have to).
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 06:46:43PM -0000, Miro Hrončok wrote:
To scratch my own itch I've packaged EPEL repos for Fedora. I've decided to use the existing epel-release component for this (but I am OK to get a different name, such as epel-repos).
See https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-release/pull-request/9 And https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1852583
Package review and any other feedback is appreciated.
I don't think a package-review is needed? It would just be unretiring the fedora branches of an existing package?
That said, I am -1 on the idea.
You have no idea how many people try to install epel packages on fedora. We had to explicitly add a Conflicts to try and reduce this, and that was with them in another repo entirely!
I fear if we do this more people will start installing stuff from epel on fedora and cause a lot of breakage.
Whats your goal here? To have them easily available to query from fedora installs?
(Side note: I'm using the hyperkitty web interface to send this email, as I cannot connect to my email from Thunderbird, sorry if the email is somewhat weird.)
Seems fine to me.
kevin
On 30. 06. 20 21:03, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
I don't think a package-review is needed? It would just be unretiring the fedora branches of an existing package?
Technically, the package is "retired for 8+ weeks" on Fedora. Hence a new review request.
That said, I am -1 on the idea.
You have no idea how many people try to install epel packages on fedora. We had to explicitly add a Conflicts to try and reduce this, and that was with them in another repo entirely!
I fear if we do this more people will start installing stuff from epel on fedora and cause a lot of breakage.
I understand the concern, but am not considering it a blocker for this, especially since people will find a way to download the epel packages anyway. This does not allow `dnf install epel-release` on Fedora neither are the repos enabled. The amount of work to actually use this package to install epel packages on Fedora is more or less the same as downloading the packages from Koji or EPEL mirrors.
Whats your goal here? To have them easily available to query from fedora installs?
Yes. See the README:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/churchyard/rpms/epel-release/blob/fedora-...
On 6/30/20 9:10 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 30. 06. 20 21:03, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
I don't think a package-review is needed? It would just be unretiring the fedora branches of an existing package?
Technically, the package is "retired for 8+ weeks" on Fedora. Hence a new review request.
That said, I am -1 on the idea.
You have no idea how many people try to install epel packages on fedora. We had to explicitly add a Conflicts to try and reduce this, and that was with them in another repo entirely!
I fear if we do this more people will start installing stuff from epel on fedora and cause a lot of breakage.
I understand the concern, but am not considering it a blocker for this, especially since people will find a way to download the epel packages anyway. This does not allow `dnf install epel-release` on Fedora neither are the repos enabled. The amount of work to actually use this package to install epel packages on Fedora is more or less the same as downloading the packages from Koji or EPEL mirrors.
+1 from me. People will always do weird things, if they want rope, I say let them have it. But that shouldn't stop us from making life easier for packagers. I myself would use this.
Tomas
On 07. 07. 20 14:08, Tomas Orsava wrote:
On 6/30/20 9:10 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 30. 06. 20 21:03, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
I don't think a package-review is needed? It would just be unretiring the fedora branches of an existing package?
Technically, the package is "retired for 8+ weeks" on Fedora. Hence a new review request.
That said, I am -1 on the idea.
You have no idea how many people try to install epel packages on fedora. We had to explicitly add a Conflicts to try and reduce this, and that was with them in another repo entirely!
I fear if we do this more people will start installing stuff from epel on fedora and cause a lot of breakage.
I understand the concern, but am not considering it a blocker for this, especially since people will find a way to download the epel packages anyway. This does not allow `dnf install epel-release` on Fedora neither are the repos enabled. The amount of work to actually use this package to install epel packages on Fedora is more or less the same as downloading the packages from Koji or EPEL mirrors.
+1 from me. People will always do weird things, if they want rope, I say let them have it. But that shouldn't stop us from making life easier for packagers. I myself would use this.
The discussion kinda stopped. I don't want to force the package in, but I'd like to have some resolution. Is there a better way to achieve the results with less risk?
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Kevin Fenzi -
Miro Hrončok -
Neal Gompa -
Tomas Orsava