On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 1:53 PM Patrick Creech <pcre...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 2019-02-12 at 12:03 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 11:55 AM Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> 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. > >
The DNF stack, Spacewalk clients, and snapd package maintenance works in a similar manner to what you described. But it shouldn't be a big deal. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
