Pavel Raiskup wrote: >> I thought that previous fedpkg or mock releases printed a >> large banner which explained this a bit and linked to >> further details? I would have thought that was still in >> place, but perhaps not. > > Mock prints the banner you expect iff the corresponding > epel-* symlink doesn't exist (if it exists, user already > made the decision). This is at least the desired > behavior; if Mock misbehaves, please report.
Will do. I checked on a clean system and got the banner. I noticed that it includes centos-stream. It has a small note that "some packages may be a bit ahead the Red Hat Enterprise Linux N" but I wonder if that's really useful to new mock users? I'm not sure that makes it clear how likely you are to have incompatible builds at any given point. IMO, that belongs with the epel-next configs, not epel. And there's already a link from epel-next-$VER-$ARCH to centos-stream+epel-next-$VER-$ARCH. Do you think it would it be reasonable to propose dropping centos-stream from the epel alternatives configuration? If not, what about making the warning a bit stronger? I'm not asking you or anyone else to do that work. I'm just wondering if it has already been debated and firmly settled before I spend time doing it. -- Todd
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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
