V Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 05:24:05AM -0400, Neal Gompa napsal(a): > On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 5:19 AM Petr Pisar <ppi...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > V Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 04:47:33AM -0400, Neal Gompa napsal(a): > > > On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 4:41 AM Miro Hrončok <mhron...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 08. 07. 21 2:28, Mohan Boddu wrote: > > > > > Also, people who wish to opt out of this mass rebuild can add > > > > > 'noautobuild' file to the epel9-next branch beforehand, this however > > > > > does not stop from creating the epel9 branch, just the package won't > > > > > be included in the rebuild. > > > > > > > > I think there are 3 possible opt outs here: > > > > > > > > 1) The epel9-next packager does not intent to maintain the package in > > > > epel9, > > > > only in epel9-next. While we might not like this goes, as long as there > > > > is no > > > > policy against this approach, always creating the branch will create > > > > work for > > > > the packager they have not signed for. I think there should be an opt > > > > out for > > > > branching as well. > > > > > > > > > > This is not a valid use-case. > > > > Why? > > > > If you were a CentOS user who moved to CentOS Stream, then you are going to > > use epel9.next. You have no use of epel9. > > > > That is not the point of epel-next. It's only intended to be a overlay > for resolving issues between RHEL minor releases (or in this case, > bootstrapping before RHEL major releases are actually out). > > EPEL-next is usually layered on top of EPEL, not the other way around. > I'm proposing we layer EPEL on EPEL-next just long enough to do a mass > rebuild cycle to populate EPEL9, then revert to the normal setup. > I see. So if you are a CentOS Stream user, you need use both epel9 and epel9-next.
In that case the EPEL 8 Next annoucement <https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/UYBLBN7WRCGKZZ3KY2SDFU63BDRD5FDL/> was quite misleading. Especially without reading the linked Wiki page. DNF should acquire dependencies among repositories. I saw so many EPEL bug reports explained by missing powertools repository. The history will repeat. -- Petr
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
