#687 Repository config guideline conflicts with FESCo-approved policy regarding COPR repos
Closed: accepted 3 years ago Opened 3 years ago by tibbs.

So in trying to answer a question on the packaging list, I noticed that we have this guideline:


which says that an RPM can't include repository configuration files period unless they're official Fedora repos.

But there's also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Third_Party_Repository_Policy and this FESCo ticket: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1421 which say that it's OK to include COPR repositories in their disabled state.

So, ugh, sigh, etc.

I don't have time at the moment to make a draft. Ripping out our guideline section and linking to the policy page is one option, but it would probably be better to refer to it and re-state it to say exactly what that means to packagers.

Metadata Update from @tibbs:
- Issue assigned to tibbs

3 years ago

Metadata Update from @tibbs:
- Issue tagged with: meeting

3 years ago


Replace the entirety of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Configuration_of_Package_Managers section with:

Packages MUST NOT install repository configuration files which violate the Third Party Repository 
Policy ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Third_Party_Repository_Policy), unless those files are 
installed under %{_docdir}.

We discussed this at this weeks meeting (http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2017-06-01/fpc.2017-06-01-16.00.txt):

  • 687 Repository config/COPr policy conflicts with FESCo policy
    (geppetto, 16:14:24)
  • ACTION: Repository config/COPR policy conflicts with FESCo policy
    (+1:4, 0:0, -1:1) (geppetto, 16:39:59)

...racor was the only holdout, and I still don't know what for. Current information on wiki is false, so if someone else can +1 that'd be cool.

...racor was the only holdout, and I still don't know what for.
We discussed this during the meeting. I voted against it, because I consider COPRs as part of Fedora repos not to be helpful and FESCOs decision to be a mistake.

+1 from me.
Urgh. I see a conflict of interest on your part, rathann.

Written up. Since this is just removing information that's been wrong for over two years, I don't really see anything to announce. If someone objects and would prefer that this be announced, please let me know.

Metadata Update from @tibbs:
- Issue untagged with: meeting
- Issue close_status updated to: accepted
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

3 years ago

Login to comment on this ticket.