CentOS virt - Jun 2016 - [CentOS-devel] docker and docker-latest packages on CentOS Virt SIG

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 6:39 AM, George Dunlap <dunlapg at umich.edu>
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Lokesh Mandvekar
> <lsm5 at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>> Moving this discussion to centos-virt@ as it's upto the SIG to
decide on
>> how this moves ahead.
>>
>> I'm hoping to have 2 new koji tag sets:
>>
>> virt7-docker-fedora-* (will have fedora rpms rebuilt)
>> virt7-docker-el-* (will have rhel candidate builds before they are
released
>> or land in centos extras)
>>
>> The -el-* repos will help to have Virt SIG as sort of an upstream and
early QA
>> for both RHEL and CentOS extras.
>>
>> If the SIG is ok with it, I'll check with CBS guys to create these
2 tags.
>>
>> See below message to centos-devel@ and
>>
http://centos-devel.1051824.n5.nabble.com/CentOS-devel-docker-and-docker-latest-packages-on-CentOS-Virt-SIG-td5712734.html
>> for background
>
> I think having the RHEL version makes sense; but I'm not sure exactly
> what we gain from having a version labelled "fedora".  If someone
> wanted the Fedora docker, why wouldn't they just install Fedora?  And
> if in this case "Fedora" really just stands for "Recently
stable
> docker", then we should probably just come up with another name for it
> that describes it better (even if in the end it turns out to be a
> straight re-building of the Fedora RPM).
I pesonally do this kind of backporting, a *lot* with Perl and Python
modules. They're often sadly out of date on a RHEL production grade
system, but switching to a Fedora base for your production
environments can get really flakey, really fast due to the immense
churn of that operating system.

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 6:39 AM, George Dunlap <dunlapg at umich.edu>
wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Lokesh Mandvekar
>> <lsm5 at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>>> Moving this discussion to centos-virt@ as it's upto the SIG to
decide on
>>> how this moves ahead.
>>>
>>> I'm hoping to have 2 new koji tag sets:
>>>
>>> virt7-docker-fedora-* (will have fedora rpms rebuilt)
>>> virt7-docker-el-* (will have rhel candidate builds before they are
released
>>> or land in centos extras)
>>>
>>> The -el-* repos will help to have Virt SIG as sort of an upstream
and early QA
>>> for both RHEL and CentOS extras.
>>>
>>> If the SIG is ok with it, I'll check with CBS guys to create
these 2 tags.
>>>
>>> See below message to centos-devel@ and
>>>
http://centos-devel.1051824.n5.nabble.com/CentOS-devel-docker-and-docker-latest-packages-on-CentOS-Virt-SIG-td5712734.html
>>> for background
>>
>> I think having the RHEL version makes sense; but I'm not sure
exactly
>> what we gain from having a version labelled "fedora".  If
someone
>> wanted the Fedora docker, why wouldn't they just install Fedora? 
And
>> if in this case "Fedora" really just stands for
"Recently stable
>> docker", then we should probably just come up with another name
for it
>> that describes it better (even if in the end it turns out to be a
>> straight re-building of the Fedora RPM).
>
> I pesonally do this kind of backporting, a *lot* with Perl and Python
> modules. They're often sadly out of date on a RHEL production grade
> system, but switching to a Fedora base for your production
> environments can get really flakey, really fast due to the immense
> churn of that operating system.
Right, so one of the basic nice things about the CentOS SIGs is that
all the stuff you don't need to be current can be RHEL-stable, and the
handful of things you do want to be current can be fresh.

My main question is whether explicitly calling it "Fedora" is the
right thing to do (even if in practice it's just a re-build of the
Fedora package).

 -George

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 7:26 AM, George Dunlap <dunlapg at umich.edu>
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel at
gmail.com> wrote:
>> I pesonally do this kind of backporting, a *lot* with Perl and Python
>> modules. They're often sadly out of date on a RHEL production grade
>> system, but switching to a Fedora base for your production
>> environments can get really flakey, really fast due to the immense
>> churn of that operating system.
>
> Right, so one of the basic nice things about the CentOS SIGs is that
> all the stuff you don't need to be current can be RHEL-stable, and the
> handful of things you do want to be current can be fresh.
>
> My main question is whether explicitly calling it "Fedora" is the
> right thing to do (even if in practice it's just a re-build of the
> Fedora package).
I thinki it would get confusing fast. Let the '%changelog' in the
.spec file show the Fedora history, RPM 'release' reflect that it's
a
more recent version and published by a CentOS SIG.