I maintain ceph, glusterfs, and nfs-ganesha in the CentOS Storage SIG. There are approx 25 package dependencies in el8/el8s, growing to 100+ for el9s.
Now that we can use EPEL repos to satisfy SIG packages built in CBS I'd prefer to maintain them all in EPEL, rather than get a few (or none) from EPEL and the rest by building them in CBS.
Thanks
So, are there special considerations for those packages above and beyond the normal epel ones (ie, avoid api changes, major versions, etc).
If not, I think this would be just fine to add to the sig (along with you).
If they have different considerations, we could still likely do it, but we should try and be clear what those are somehow?
So, are there special considerations for those packages above and beyond the normal epel ones (ie, avoid api changes, major versions, etc). If not, I think this would be just fine to add to the sig (along with you). If they have different considerations, we could still likely do it, but we should try and be clear what those are somehow?
AFAIK there are no special considerations. Historically the dependencies have been built in CentOS CBS and this sometimes led to mismatches between packages in SIG repos vs packages in EPEL. Since most people want or expect to use EPEL it would be better to have a single source for these packages; i.e EPEL as the single source.
We talked about this in the EPEL sig meeting today. We are a bit confused as to what you are wanting here. :)
Is it:
1) Membership in the EPEL sig? (we have no formal membership requirements, so... your in!)
2) Wanting to add your packages / deps to the epel-packager-sig (this is a group that helps maintain packages in epel where maintainers may not care about epel or they would otherwise get not much attention) and yourself join that group (so you can co-maintain all those packages + all the other ones the epel-packager-sig maintains)?
Our meetings are on irc on wed at 20UTC in #fedora-meeting on irc.libera if you want to drop by next week and discuss more?
We talked about this in the EPEL sig meeting today. We are a bit confused as to what you are wanting here. :) Is it: 1) Membership in the EPEL sig? (we have no formal membership requirements, so... your in!) 2) Wanting to add your packages / deps to the epel-packager-sig (this is a group that helps maintain packages in epel where maintainers may not care about epel or they would otherwise get not much attention) and yourself join that group (so you can co-maintain all those packages + all the other ones the epel-packager-sig maintains)?
In a nutshell, I want to be able to build the ceph, glusterfs, and nfs-ganesha dependencies in EPEL; without necessarily having to ask the package maintainer(s) to do it for me, or rely on them to do it on a timely basis. Ceph and glusterfs themselves can't be packaged in EPEL, so they will continue to be packaged for el9s (and el8s too I suppose) in the CentOS Storage SIG. But most or all of the dependencies can be packaged in EPEL. Most people using CentOS also use EPEL, so by packaging all the dependencies in one place — in EPEL — any potential conflicts between the two can be avoided.
That's it. :-)
see you then.
kkeithie is a member of the epel-packagers-sig. Closing issue.
Metadata Update from @tdawson: - Issue close_status updated to: Fixed - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Login to comment on this ticket.