On Tue, 2019-02-12 at 12:03 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 11:55 AM Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> wrote: > > This identifies that packaging Pulp into Fedora is valuable. Thank you for > > that. I've got a few questions to help us > > get there. > > > > What is the recommendation for where to keep the spec files for these > > items? Is it directly in the Fedora infra? The > > Pulp upstream repos aren't supposed to contain packaging bits anymore is my > > understanding. > > > > Spec files and other packaging specific data *must* reside in Fedora > Dist-Git: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_spec_maintenance_and_canonicity > > Spec files in upstream repos is up to the upstream, but Fedora > infrastructure cannot access them and cannot rely on them.
I'm not quite ready to wade into the broader conversation yet.. But to clarify on this one point: Upstream can create a one size fits all spec file that conforms to fedora's policies, and a copy of said spec file will need to be commited to fedora's dist git and the package in fedora will be built from that dist git location. To ease maintenance in this case, this keeps upstream from having to manage separate spec files in multiple locations. When an update in fedora is needed, the spec file can be copied mostly as-is, iirc. There are other projects that do such, immediately my mind thinks of the candlepin team's subman work. _______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
