On 06/03/2025 10.12, Remi Collet wrote:
Le 05/03/2025 à 17:52, Sérgio Basto via epel-devel a écrit :
On Wed, 2025-03-05 at 16:28 +0100, Remi Collet wrote:
Le 05/03/2025 à 14:58, Sérgio Basto via epel-devel a écrit :
On Wed, 2025-03-05 at 13:47 +0100, Remi Collet wrote:
Le 21/02/2025 à 07:20, Remi Collet a écrit :
AFAIK, $releasever is 10 by default.
I maybe I'm seeing this wrong , but $releasever is 10 and repo will
have packages distag 10_1 , or $releasever is 10.0 and packages in
the
repo will have distag 10_0 only
Don't understand this sentence....
we have define dist tag [1] in /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.dist which
is use on release version of the package [2]
Epel 10 is like rawhide , when it is branched Epel 10.0 from Epel 10,
the dist tag of Epel 10 changed from 10_0 to 10_1 . So we have 2 repos,
one with releasever=10 with dist tag 10_1 and second with
releasever=10.0 with dist tag 10_0. I think after RHEL 10.1 be released
, we will branch from Epel 10 to Epel 10.1 , again dist tag of Epel 10
change, now from 10_1 to 10_2 and a new repo is created with
releasever=10.1 , maybe repo old repo releasever=10.0 will be deleted
...
That is how I see this , maybe I'm not correct
Yes, but this is about how it is built, not a problem
My concern is about how it is consumed by EL users
Remi
Seems you are describing this issue: https://pagure.io/epel/issue/313
[1]
%fedora 41
%fc41 1
%distcore .fc%{fedora}
%dist ... %{distcore}
[2]
Release: 1%{?dist}
To be clear (or try to)
By default (CentOS Stream, RHEL, Alma....)
* releaserver set to 10
* releaserver_major set to 10
* releaserver_minor not set
So will pull from "10" repository (which is really "10.1" for EPEL)
If forced to 10.0
* releaserver set to 10.0
* releaserver_major set to 10
* releaserver_minor set to 0
Then will pull from "10.0" repository (until forced to another value)
no need $releasever_major and $releasever_minor values
epel.repo uses
metalink=
https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/metalink?repo=epel-$releasever_majo
r${releasever_minor:+.$releasever_minor}&arch=$basearch
$releasever_major${releasever_minor:+.$releasever_minor} which is
exactly the same than $releasever (so not useful and less legible)
But $releasever_major can be useful, ex
gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-EPEL-$releasever_major
Remi
Confirmed on both RHEL-10.0-Beta and AlmaLinux-10.0-Beta
https://forums.almalinux.org/t/bug-epel-repo-missing-releasever-
major-and-releasever-minor-values/5566/3?u=remi
Sorry, but I think EPEL-10 is broken by design
--
_______________________________________________
epel-devel mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
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/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
