==========================================================
 EPEL Proposal #4: Build it all in CentOS promote to RHEL
==========================================================

So this one came up when we were going over problems with building
alternative architectures in EPEL. One of the big problems is that
currently everything is built against Red Hat Enterprise Linux. This
has some bonuses for some people but it causes a problem when
architectures are built against by CentOS but not Red Hat. [E.G. EL-7
for i386 and arm32] When a Red Hat release is done, the builders
usually get updated as part of our repopull from the RHN
servers. Usually there are some changes in added and subtracted
packages which can cause packages to get new dependencies. While this
is an inconvenience to customers.. it isn't a problem for the
builders. When we start mixing distributions, it does cause a problem
with the builders because a package may get compiled for EL-7 x86_64
and not be the same as arm32 or i386 due to the fact that buildroots
for i386 are not as up2date as the RHEL ones. This can cause builds
all across the system to break so it is frowned on.

A couple of proposed fixes were:

1. Compile everything against CentOS. This has the bonus that they all
   kind of get updated at the same time so breakages from going from
   7.3 to 7.4 is smaller. However, a lot of business users have either
   ITIL or security plans which allow for EPEL packages to be used on
   their systems because they were built against RHEL versus a
   rebuild. Remove that and it causes various problems for users.
2. Split off the builds for alternative architectures in a shadow
   koji which is turned off when these splits occur. This makes it
   partially easier to manage but brings in other problems.
3. some other ways to fix this that I don't know how to describe
   correctly

However while we were hashing on 1, someone else who had been asking
about why don't we build everything came up with a
different mix. Build everything against CentOS for various
architectures and put it in some other repository (Extra Packages in
CentOS came to mind). Packages which people really want and are
willing to care for are branched off into EPEL packages which are
built against RHEL. [Or if they really want it they get a business
case to Red Hat to make it a product they will pay for it.]

There is a lot of problems with the above.. it requires a lot of work
in many different moving parts to get done. It also could be even more
confusing than what we have already. However, I did say I was going to
write up all the proposals for people to look at.

-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
_______________________________________________
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Reply via email to