Re: mdapi in our infrastructure

2015-10-28 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III 
> "JLT" == Jason L Tibbitts  writes:

JLT> I guess this hinges on whether having an _srpm_ with the same name
JLT> as one in RHEL would cause an issue for EPEL, even if there's no
JLT> conflict with the binary packages.

Just confirmed that this isn't an issue, since it's already done in a
few cases.

 - J<
___
infrastructure mailing list
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: mdapi in our infrastructure

2015-10-28 Thread Kevin Fenzi 
On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:40:56 -0500
Jason L Tibbitts III  wrote:

> > "PC" == Pierre-Yves Chibon  writes:  
> 
> PC> My problem is more for the package in Fedora also present in RHEL,
> PC> thus where we only want the python3 version as otherwise we
> PC> conflict.  
> 
> That's where either you don't build the python2 version on RHEL, by
> using a separate spec or with a mass of ifdefs.  I guess this hinges
> on whether having an _srpm_ with the same name as one in RHEL would
> cause an issue for EPEL, even if there's no conflict with the binary
> packages.  I would guess not as I haven't seen any mention of
> mass-reviews (or exemptions for such) for python3-* packages in EPEL.

koji operates on package names. It will only get rpms from a package in
one place, it won't mix them at all. 

So, if RHEL has python-foo and EPEL creates a package named python-foo,
it will cause koji to completely and utterly ignore the RHEL python-foo
and all rpms it makes. 

So, you will need to make python3-foo for python3 support in EPEL where
there's a python2 version in RHEL. 

kevin


pgp4MEdKT4CkE.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
infrastructure mailing list
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: mdapi in our infrastructure

2015-10-28 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III 
Well, crap, I guess I was wrong, or the answer is more complicated.  Too
bad.

 - J<
___
infrastructure mailing list
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: mdapi in our infrastructure

2015-10-28 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III 
> "PC" == Pierre-Yves Chibon  writes:

PC> My problem is more for the package in Fedora also present in RHEL,
PC> thus where we only want the python3 version as otherwise we
PC> conflict.

That's where either you don't build the python2 version on RHEL, by
using a separate spec or with a mass of ifdefs.  I guess this hinges on
whether having an _srpm_ with the same name as one in RHEL would cause
an issue for EPEL, even if there's no conflict with the binary
packages.  I would guess not as I haven't seen any mention of
mass-reviews (or exemptions for such) for python3-* packages in EPEL.

 - J<
___
infrastructure mailing list
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org