On Thu, 2025-03-06 at 10:12 +0100, 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
RHEL 10.x consume epel 10.x
Centos Stream 10 consume epel 10
Seems to me more simpler than in EL 9
> Remi
> >
> >
> > [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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Sérgio M. B.
--
_______________________________________________
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
