From: "Sandro Bonazzola" <sbonazzo(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "arch" <arch(a)ovirt.org&gt;, "infra" <infra(a)ovirt.org&gt; Cc: "Kiril Nesenko" <knesenko(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Ohad Basan" <obasan(a)redhat.com&gt; Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:40:33 AM Subject: Proposal for dropping packages from ovirt rpm repositories Hi, I think that having the same package on different repositories must be avoided. The last python-cpopen-1.3 release broke repository closure of ovirt-stable which provides a vdsm release still requiring vdsm-python-cpopen. I think that since vdsm and other packages are delivered in Fedora repositories we should not deliver them in ovirt repositories. An example is: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1056470 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1056464 python-cpopen affects both Fedora and oVirt repositories, hitting 2 different products. but other packages are handled as vdsm. So i suggest to keep just .tar.gz files on ovirt site for allowing fedora packagers to build referencing the source tarball and drop at all any package already provided by Fedora from ovirt site. Comments as always are welcome.

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 10:40:33AM +0100, Sandro Bonazzola wrote: > Hi, > I think that having the same package on different repositories must be avoided. > > The last python-cpopen-1.3 release broke repository closure of ovirt-stable which provides a vdsm release still requiring vdsm-python-cpopen. > I think that since vdsm and other packages are delivered in Fedora repositories we should not deliver them in ovirt repositories. > An example is: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1056470 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1056464 > > python-cpopen affects both Fedora and oVirt repositories, hitting 2 different products. > but other packages are handled as vdsm. > So i suggest to keep just .tar.gz files on ovirt site for allowing fedora packagers to build referencing the source tarball and drop at all any > package already provided by Fedora from ovirt site. > > Comments as always are welcome. Only problem with this is that epel would not agree to ship the el6 build of rpm - we'd need to carry it on our own.

Dan.