Is the epel8-playground builder somehow using an different version of python-rpm-macros? Happy to file a bug if I know where this should go.

Generally speaking (I can make this a separate thread if that helps) - do we expect every package in EPEL8 to also be built for EPEL8-playground, either through package.cfg or by building directly from the epel8-playground branch?

On 5/1/20 1:10 AM, Petr Pisar wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 12:32:26PM -0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: >> Generally speaking (I can make this a separate thread if that helps) - do we >> expect every package in EPEL8 to also be built for EPEL8-playground, either >> through package.cfg or by building directly from the epel8-playground >> branch? > > There is no such rule, but in my opinion, it is welcomed for exactly the terrible > experience anybody gets when he tries to use epel8-playground. > Right, but if some package repos are missing packages.cfg and the maintainer does not build it separately for epel8-playground, it is a terrible experience for other packages depending on this missing package -- everytime the maintainer submits an epel8 build, the epel8-playground target will report a build failure. > The purpose of epel8-playground is to diverge when needed. That's why the epel8 > branch contains package.cfg by default. > That seems to be the case for packages branched normally (fedpkg request-branch). *However* I've seen some packages where the epel8 branch and master branch are identical -- not sure how it happens, maybe the committer has force-push permission? Or is there a way to request that a branch be cloned from another branch instead of created from scratch?

There was no 'rule' but the intent was everyone would keep the package.cfg and build for both. If they were not making any playground changes, they didn't need to commit anything, and fedpkg build would just build for both epel8 and epel8-playground. The problem is that the packages.cfg commit annoys everyone who does a 'merge origin/master' because it's not on the master branch, so they delete it to get their workflow back. I'd like to look at seeing if we can accomplish what we wanted with playground by having it just inherit from epel8. Failing that, we could just look at dropping playground if it's not useful for people.

>> The purpose of epel8-playground is to diverge when needed. That's why the epel8 >> branch contains package.cfg by default. >> > That seems to be the case for packages branched normally (fedpkg > request-branch). *However* I've seen some packages where the epel8 branch > and master branch are identical -- not sure how it happens, maybe the > committer has force-push permission? Or is there a way to request that a > branch be cloned from another branch instead of created from scratch? There's no force-push allowed. They likely just deleted it and are merging master over it.