Bug 1487508
| Summary: | Review Request: autotools - GNU Autotools (Autoconf and Automake) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora Modules | Reporter: | Petr Pisar <ppisar> |
| Component: | Module Review | Assignee: | Tomas Tomecek <ttomecek> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | unspecified | CC: | ttomecek |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | ttomecek:
fedora-review+
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | autotools-master-20170901140354 | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2017-09-01 14:32:50 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Petr Pisar
2017-09-01 06:29:53 UTC
Wow, very nice work! Once the help2man is built inside infrastructure I assume we can remove it from this module. I will also close review request of my autotools submission since this one is much better. review+ One more thing: how do you name the initial stream? I tried to ask here at Flock and no one was really able to provide a good suggestion. The thing is that automake and autoconf have distinct release schedule is it's impossible to figure out a stream name which would match upstream version. The only thing I was able to figure out was to name the stream as a date (e.g. date of the stream creation request). Since there are only two packages meant to be in the module, it could be also possible to do a stream name which would match both versions. (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/modules/autotools That was one of the reasons I originally submitted separate modules for each of the tools.
We can can put both versions into the stream (2.69+1.15). At the end the stream is an human-oriented string. Nothing that needs to be parsable for machines (like a time stamp). The stream should identify ABI compatibility. That's why I propose "2.69+1.15" and not "2.69+1.15.1" because automake-1.15.1 is supposed to be compatible with automake-1.15.
For comparison, this is how Gentoo distribution versions automake:
Keywords for sys-devel/automake:
| | u |
| a a p s a n r | n |
| l m h i p p r m m i i s | e u s | r
| p d a p a p c a x m i 6 o s 3 | a s l | e
| h 6 r p 6 p 6 r 8 6 p 8 s c 9 s | p e o | p
| a 4 m a 4 c 4 c 6 4 s k 2 v 0 h | i d t | o
-------------+---------------------------------+----------+-------
1.4_p6-r2 | + + + + + + + + + + ~ + o o + + | 4 o 1.4 | gentoo
-------------+---------------------------------+----------+-------
1.5-r2 | + + + + + + + + + + ~ + o o + + | 4 o 1.5 | gentoo
-------------+---------------------------------+----------+-------
1.6.3-r2 | + + + + + + + + + + ~ + o o + + | 4 o 1.6 | gentoo
-------------+---------------------------------+----------+-------
1.7.9-r3 | + + + + + + + + + + ~ + o o + + | 4 o 1.7 | gentoo
-------------+---------------------------------+----------+-------
1.8.5-r5 | + + + + + + + + + + ~ + o o + + | 4 o 1.8 | gentoo
-------------+---------------------------------+----------+-------
1.9.6-r4 | + + + + + + + + + + ~ + o o + + | 4 o 1.9 | gentoo
-------------+---------------------------------+----------+-------
1.10.3-r1 | + + + + + + + + + + ~ + o o + + | 4 o 1.10 | gentoo
1.10.3-r2 | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ | 4 o | gentoo
-------------+---------------------------------+----------+-------
[I]1.11.6-r1 | + + + + + + + + + + ~ + o o + + | 5 o 1.11 | gentoo
1.11.6-r2 | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ | 5 o | gentoo
-------------+---------------------------------+----------+-------
1.12.6 | + + + + + + + + + + ~ + o o + + | 5 o 1.12 | gentoo
1.12.6-r1 | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ | 5 o | gentoo
-------------+---------------------------------+----------+-------
1.13.4 | + + + + + + + + + + ~ + o o + + | 5 o 1.13 | gentoo
1.13.4-r1 | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ | 5 o | gentoo
-------------+---------------------------------+----------+-------
1.14.1 | + + + + + + + + + + ~ + o o + + | 5 o 1.14 | gentoo
1.14.1-r1 | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ | 5 o | gentoo
-------------+---------------------------------+----------+-------
1.15 | + + + + + + + + + + ~ + o o + + | 5 o 1.15 | gentoo
1.15-r1 | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ | 5 # | gentoo
[I]1.15-r2 | + + + + + + + + + ~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ | 5 o | gentoo
1.15.1 | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ | 5 # | gentoo
1.15.1-r1 | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ | 6 o | gentoo
-------------+---------------------------------+----------+-------
9999 | o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o | 6 o 9999 | gentoo
The left-most column is the package version, the "slot" column is the package ABI. In the output you can see that I have installed automake-1.11.6-r1 that provides "1.11" ABI and I also have installed automake-1.15-r2 that provides "1.15" ABI.
I believe modularity streams should provide similar look and feel.
But this is only my humble opinion. I requested branch "master" because last time I talked to contyk he said we should use "master" only until things get clearer.
Your proposal with "2.69+1.15" makes sense to me. If the maintenance is hard, we can always put the packages into separate modules and deprecate this module. Thank you for the review and the repository. |