On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 6:34 PM Gordon Messmer <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2025-11-12 2:56 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > > We tried. If the package provided the full releasever, a lot of things > > would have been simpler, but there were arguments that some Red Hat > > tooling couldn't handle it currently. > > > OK. Then, can the epel repo configs do the ugly but reliable thing? > metalink is set up to provide a URL to the correct places, when clients > ask for it. > > > I don't know if this is the simplest expression, but it results in 10.0 > systems getting packages built for 10.0 (and remains compatible with > CentOS Stream): > > metalink=https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/metalink?repo=epel${releasever_minor:+-z}-$releasever${releasever_minor:+.}$releasever_minor&arch=$basearch >
No, we can't, because the default for RHEL-ish platforms is a rolling major content stream. That means that the upgrade path is broken without the releasever thing. Without some way to update the value of $releasever as *part* of the upgrade transaction, it would be broken. We didn't have time to implement a mechanism for RHEL 10, but it might be solvable for RHEL 11. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! -- _______________________________________________ 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
