We have been asked for a transition plan, for people using epel 8 modules. Although we have talked about a transition plan, I realized we didn't write anything outside of chats and talking to one another. I believe this is what we said, but if others can verify and/or correct me, that would be great.
= EPEL 8 Modularity transition plan There are users that use EPEL 8 Modules. This is a transition plan to help users through this process. == Transition Steps === 1 - Verify that you are using an EPEL 8 Module dnf list installed | grep epel-modular If nothing shows up, great, you are done. === 2 - Determine if there are alternatives Several of the EPEL 8 modules are in RHEL's modules, or are non-modular packages in epel. In the list below, look for the modules with [a]. That means there is an alternative to the epel module. If your module version has an [s], then the alternative is the same version. If your module version has a [d], then the alternative has a different version. If you have an alternative, safely switch to the alternative packages.[1] If you were able to move off of all your epel 8 modules, great, you are done. === 3 - Request non-modular package for EPEL 8 If there were no alternative packages to move to, then request the package be put in non-modular epel8. Once it is in non-modular EPEL 8, got back to step 2. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-package-request/ === 4 - Last Resort If you have been unable to transition off the EPEL 8 Modules, then the final option is to just keep using them. Because the mirrors will be pointing to the archives, there is nothing you need to change in your epel-modularity configuration file. It will just continue to work. But keep a backup somewhere because eventually, the epel-modularity configuration will be completely removed from epel-release. This is not recommended. The modules will not receive any further security or bug fixes. == EPEL 8 Modules Legend: [a] - There is an alternative [n] - There is no alternative [s] - There is an alternative with the same version [d] - There is an alternative with a different version [x] - This module didn't install, or had some problems with it. === 389-directory-server [n] === avocado [a] * latest [d] * 8.2 [s] === avocado-vt [n] === cobbler [n] === cri-o [n] === dwm [n][x] Does not install on RHEL 8 === ghc [a] * 8.2 [s] * 8.4 [d] === libuv [a] === nextcloud [n][x] None of the modules install on RHEL 8 === nginx [a][d] === nodejs [a] * 13 [d] * 16-epel [s] === postgresql [a][d] === swig [a][x][s] The EPEL version conflicts with RHEL's, should have been removed earlier. === zabbix [a] * 5.0 [d] * 6.0 [s] Does this sound correct to everyone? Troy [1] - Detailed instructions for moving to alternative packages are out of the scope of this document.
_______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
