On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 14:00 +0200, Adrian Schröter wrote:
On Mittwoch, 12. Juli 2017, 13:34:46 CEST wrote Dirk Müller:
Hi Adrian,
2017-07-12 13:29 GMT+02:00 Adrian Schröter
: It would just regulary break, because of changes in openSUSE:Factory.
This makes only sense when we plan to submit the changes back to openSUSE:Factory.
Not sure I understand that. 90%+ of the changes we do are in the DVD5-aarch64.group file, which is by definition conflict free to the base. I don't see a _servicedata file that would e.g. constantly conflict.
no, the repo, media and architecture definitions are more likely to conflict.
However, it is up to you to try it. Just keep in mind that the source service will not run on underlying changes and you need still manually to merge them.
I would actually welcome the change that the tumblweed team would maintain the DVD5-aarch64.group file in the base product, so far that wasn't wanted but since this is mostly mechanical I think it might help us in reducing the workload.
IMHO the way better approch .... In this case you might indeed want to branch from the 000product from openSUSE:Factory and submit request your changes back.
It seems Dominique is also fine with this.
The tricky part will be to not break inside oS:F.. let's for example look at the diff of the old _product container: osc rdiff openSUSE:Factory _product openSUSE:Factory:ARM - <url name="repository">http://download.opensuse.org/tumble weed/repo/oss/</url>; + <url name="repository">http://download.opensuse.org/ports/ %{_target_cpu}/tumbleweed/repo/oss/</url>; => we need a way to unify this / conditionalize this in the .product file (the format does not match for port and non-port archs) the archset changes should be safe to be moved to oS:F already the various package name = FOO should be fine - not sure why they are tagged arch / onlyarch - they are obviously the same on other archs!?! the use group=FOO are 'trickier' to have in oS:F/_product / 000product, as adding the .group file to oS:F would mean various bots updating .group files for the respective ports and triggering rebuilds in oS:F - so those are not really a good thing to have (the include will fail, as we don't have the .group file present) THOSE are the things in need of a solution before we can move 'all' into the main product definition - but then, the .product does not change that often and we can survive with this part (and the .group files) being added in the :Ports but nothing else should be in the diff. Cheers, Dominique