- 1 Packaging Guidelines and Policies for EPEL
- 1.1 Package maintenance and update policy
- 1.1.1 Digest
- 1.1.2 Policy
- 1.1.3 Workflow examples / Information
- 1.1.4 Guidelines and Backgrounds for this policy
- 188.8.131.52 Some examples of what package updates that are fine or not
- 1.1.5 Still unsure if a package is fine for EPEL?
- 1.1.6 Why not a rolling release with latest packages like what was in Fedora Extras?
- 1.1.7 Getting a Fedora package in EPEL
- 1.1.8 Distribution specific guidelines
- 1.2 Policy for Conflicting Packages
- 1.1 Package maintenance and update policy
Packaging Guidelines and Policies for EPEL
The packages in EPEL follow the Fedora Packaging and Maintenance Guidelines -- that includes, but is not limited to the packaging guidelines, the package naming guidelines and the package review guidelines that are designed and maintained by the FESCo and Packaging Committee. EPEL-specific exceptions are documented here and in the EPEL:Packaging page.
Please note that the sections "Guidelines" and "Policies" use their names on purpose. Consider the guidelines as something that should be followed normally, but doesn't have to if there are good reasons not to -- please ask the EPEL SIG members in case you are in doubt if your reasons are good. The word policies has a stronger meaning, and what is written in that section should be considered rules that must always be followed.
Package maintenance and update policy
EPEL wants to provide a common "look and feel" to the users of our repository. Thus the EPEL SIG wrote this policy that describes the regulations for package maintenance and updates in EPEL, that are a bit more strictly regulated then they are in Fedora now.
The goal is to have packages in EPEL that enhances the Enterprise Linux distributions the packages were build against without disturbing or replacing packages from that distribution. The packages in the repository should, if possible, be maintained in similar ways to the Enterprise Packages they were built against. In other words: have a mostly stable set of packages that normally to not change at all and only changes if there are good reasons for it -- so no "hey, there is a new version, it builds, let's ship it" mentality.
EPEL packages should only enhance and never disturb the Enterprise Linux distributions they were built for. Thus packages from EPEL should never replace packages from the target base distribution - including those on the base distribution as well as layered products; kernel-modules further are not allowed, as they can disturb the base kernel easily.
The Target Base for each distribution has been defined in older mailing list discussions as the version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux that the Koji builders have access to.
- EPEL-6 is built against Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 channels
- EPEL-7 is built against Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 channels
Packages which are known to be in other Red Hat Enterprise Linux channels should be maintained in a similar fashion to limited architecture packages. The package should be gotten from the upstream (either ftp.redhat.com for RHEL-6 or git.centos.org for RHEL-7) and maintained with a NEVR less than that of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux release. This is because packages have been known to move from a Workstation channel to a server channel and backing out a package can be problematic.
The packages in the repository should, if possible, be maintained in similar ways to the Enterprise Packages they were built against. In other words: have a mostly stable set of packages that normally does not change at all and only changes if there are good reasons for changes. This is the spirit of a stable enterprise environment.
The changes that cant be avoided get routed into different release trees. Only updates that fix important bugs (say: data-corruption, security problems, really annoying bugs) go to a testing branch for a short time period and then are pushed to the stable branch; those people that sign and push the EPEL packages to the public repo will skim over the list of updated packages for the stable repo to make sure that sure the goal "only important updates for the stable branch" is fulfilled.
Other updates get queued up in a testing repository over time. That repository becomes the new stable branch after at LEAST 2 weeks of testing. But even these updates should be limited to fixes only as far as possible and should be tested in Fedora beforehand if possible. Updated Packages that change the ABI or require config file adjustments must be avoided if at all possible. Compat- Packages that provide the old ABI need to be provided in the repo if there is no way around a package update that changes the ABI. Packages in the testing repo that contain dependency issues or where the maintainer doesn't feel they are stable will be held back from the stable push. Note that maintainers will need to request their packages go to stable after 2 weeks or have sufficient karma in their update to do so. No automatic promotions from testing to stable happen any longer.
When a new quarterly update is released, EPEL will wait until the CentOS version of that update is available.
For more information about updating EPEL packages, including minimum testing time for packages, refer to the EPEL Updates Policy.
Workflow examples / Information
- Maintainer builds the package normally using 'make build'
- The Maintainer submits an update request using bodhi ('make update' or via the web interface).
- The update MUST spend at least 2 weeks in testing, unless it's a security or critical bug fix.
- After 2 weeks, bodhi will mail the maintainer to let them know it's been 2 weeks.
- If the Maintainer requests stable at this point or the update has sufficient karma it will be pushed to stable in the next push.
- Pushes for both testing and stable take place daily.
- Updates never leave testing for stable unless the maintainer requests it, or there is sufficient karma. (NO auto promotion of updates).
Guidelines and Backgrounds for this policy
Some examples of what package updates that are fine or not
Examples hopefully help to outline how to actually apply above policy in practise.
Minor version updates
Let's assume package foo is shipped in EPEL 5.0 as version 1.0.1; upstream developers now ship 1.0.2
- build as normal, but wait at least two weeks and possibly more in testing.
A little bit bigger minor version updates
Let's assume package foo is shipped in EPEL 5.0 as version 1.0.1; upstream developers now ship 1.2.0; the ABI is compatible to 1.0.1 and the existing config files continue to work
- build as normal, but leave in testing until there is sufficient karma to go to stable.
A yet again little bit bigger minor version updates
Let's assume package foo is shipped in EPEL 5.0 as version 1.0.1; upstream developers now ship 1.4.0; the ABI is compatible to 1.0.1, but the config files need manual adjustments
- build for the stable branch is normally not acceptable; a backport should be strongly considered if there are any serious bugs that must be fixed
- build for the testing branch is also disliked; but it is acceptable if there is no other easy way out to solve serious bugs; but the update and the config file adjustments need to be announced to the users properly -- use the epel-announce list for this.
- leave in testing if at all possible.
A major version update
Let's assume package foo is shipped in EPEL 5.0 as version 1.0.1; upstream developers now ship 2.0.0; the ABI changes or the config files need manual adjustments
- this update should be avoided if possible at all. If there really is no other way out to fix a serious bug then it rare cases it might be acceptable to build the new version for the testing branch and mention the update and the needed adjustments in the release notes for the next update. An additional compat- packages with the old libs is necessary if the ABI changed.
Security updates should be marked as such in bodhi and will be pushed to stable. Because of this you should always try and make as few changes as possible on these sorts of updates. Apply only the backported fix, or if you must, the new version that provides only the fix. Try and avoid pushing other changes with a security update.
Add more examples as they show up
If too many show up, put them into a separate document.
Still unsure if a package is fine for EPEL?
Just ask on EPEL developers mailing list or #epel on freenode.org for opinions from EPEL SIG members.
Why not a rolling release with latest packages like what was in Fedora Extras?
Why should we? That would be what Fedora Extras did and worked and works well for it -- but that's mainly because Fedora (Core) has lots of updates and a nearly rolling-release scheme/quick release cycle, too. But the Enterprise Linux we build against is much more careful with updates and has longer life-cycle; thus we should do the same for EPEL, as most users will properly prefer it that way, as they chose a stable distro for some reasons -- if they want the latest packages they might have chosen Fedora.
Sure, there are lots of areas where having a mix of a stable base and a set of quite new packages on top of it is wanted. *Maybe* the EPEL project will provide a solution (in parallel to the carefully updated repository!) for those cases in the long term, but not for the start. There are already third party repositories out there that provide something in this direction, so users might be served by them already.
Further: A rolling release scheme like Fedora Extras did is not possible for many EPEL packages for another reason, new packages often require new versions of certain core libraries. This will cause problems in EPEL because we won't be able to provide updated libs as it would replace libraries in the core OS.
Example: This document was written round about when RHEL5 got released; many packages that get build for RHEL5 can't be build for RHEL4 at this point of time already, as the RHEL4-gtk2-Package is two years old and is too old for many current applications, as they depend on a newer gtk2. So if even if we would try to have a rolling scheme with quite new package we'd fail, as we can't build a bunch of package due to this dependencies on libs; in the end we would have a repo with some quite new packages while others are still quite old. That mix wouldn't make either of the "latest versions" or "careful updates only" sides happy; so we try to target the "careful updates only" sides. Remember, EPEL's support and updates cycle is much longer then Fedora's.
Getting a Fedora package in EPEL
Distribution specific guidelines
The Fedora Packaging Guidelines are written for current Fedora releases. Sometimes there are changes in Fedora that cause the packaging guidelines there to not make sense for the older software being run in RHEL. When that occurs, we document the differences with the Fedora Packaging Guidelines on the EPEL:Packaging page.
Policy for Conflicting Packages
- EPEL packages must never conflict with packages in RHEL Base (Including Advanced Platform). See above link for a complete list of channels per RHEL Release that EPEL does not conflict with. This includes the source package name due to the way that koji deals with packages from external repositories.
- EPEL packages can conflict with packages in other RHEL channels.
- EPEL maintainers should be open to communication from RHEL maintainers and try and accommodate them by not shipping specific packages, or by adjusting the package in EPEL to better handle a conflicting package in a channel on a case by case basis.
When a package is added to RHEL for that is already in EPEL, it usually needs to be removed from EPEL. Please follow the retirement process to do this. If the package is only available for a subset of all architectures, it might still be possible to keep the package in EPEL as described in the EPEL Packaging Guidelines.
Conflicts in compat packages
Due to the EPEL policy of maintaining backwards compatibility, EPEL has a greater need for forward compat packages than Fedora. When creating, a compat package, note that it is okay to set a Conflicts between them as noted in the Conflicts Guidelines. At this time, this is only allowed for packages overriding packages in EPEL, not in RHEL Base.