#10709 Move modules/flatpak-runtime and modules/flatpak-sdk to flatpaks/
Closed: Fixed 2 years ago by kalev. Opened 2 years ago by otaylor.

In addition to application flatpaks under flatpaks/ (where the repository contains both the module definition and the container definition) we have the following additional repositories:

  • modules/flatpak-common module definition for shared Flatpak package rebuilds
  • modules/flatpak-runtime module and container definition for flatpak-runtime (and scripts)
  • modules/flatpak-sdk container definition for flatpak-sdk (uses flatpak-runtime module)
  • flatpaks/flatpak-runtime unused repository (but gets used for ACL checks by bodhi)
  • flatpaks/flatpak-sdk unused repository (but gets used for ACL checks by bodhi)

I'd like to request that we move modules/flatpak-runtime and modules/flatpak-sdk to the flatpaks/ namespace, merging them with the current repositories there. This makes more sense since they contain container definitions as well as module definitions.

(Alternate approach would be to move only the container definition from flatpak-runtime to flatpaks/flatpak-runtime, making it like flatpak-sdk. That would be arguably more logical, but since we have many releases of history where the module and container definitions for flatpak-runtime are in the same repository, it would be confusing when looking at the history.)

The way that the two repositories should move is:
* The f<N> branches from modules/ should be pushed to the flatpaks/ repositories
* The current stable branch from the flatpaks/ repositories should be left to keep Bodhi happy - it checks acls on the 'stable' branch for all Flatpaks.
* The ACLs (users) should be copied over
* The old repositories under modules/ should be deleted

Thanks!

cc: @kalev @tpopela


@otaylor Can this acheived by retiring the repos in modules/ namespace and requesting the repos in flatpaks/ namespace?

Metadata Update from @mohanboddu:
- Issue tagged with: low-gain, low-trouble, ops

2 years ago

@mohanboddu The repos already exist in the flatpaks/ namespace - so they wouldn't need to be requested there.

In terms of retiring vs. deleting after moving all branches:

  • I'd prefer to see the old branches coped over to the flatpaks/ namespace., so that we have history in one place.
  • I'd prefer not to have old versions of the repositories under modules/ to avoid confusion, though obviously the README on the master branch could be updated to point to the right place.

But neither is a hard requirements - if deleting the old repositories would be technically too hard or violates some other constraint, we do it as retirement.

@kevin you mentioned that Mohan moved into a different team - can you find someone to look at this?

Either @humaton or myself can look...I'll try and remember to bring it up at our next meeting to discuss.

I believe it was pingou who did the original moves. At first, all flatpaks were under modules/ namespace but when flatpaks/ namespace was introduced, pingou just moved the flatpak modules over to the new namespace.

It would probably make sense to do the same with the 3 remaining modules.

@kalev @tpopela so now the repositories are moved to flatpaks namespace. Please test the changes and if everything is ok close this ticket.

Everything looks good in my testing. Thanks, @humaton!

Metadata Update from @kalev:
- Issue close_status updated to: Fixed
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

2 years ago

Log in to comment on this ticket.

Metadata
Boards 1
Ops Status: Backlog