On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 3:19 PM Gary Buhrmaster <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 6:34 AM Nicolas Chauvet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Also I don't get why epel went with el10.0 dist. There will be > > strictly no matching with the RHEL package set. CentOS Stream has its > > own pace to update packages. So to me it's a wrong assumption that any > > epel tag for centos 10 stream would induce any compatibility with > > related RHEL versions. At least there is only currently one epel10 > > branch there. > > I *think* this is the thinking of dealing with the > legacy of "epel-next" (which was, shall we say, > somewhat problematic), which, while most times, > one does not need/want to upgrade a package > (as EL itself is *mostly" stable), there are times > when you want/need to deal with upgrading an > epel package if/only-if the base EL is updated > (from 10.0 to 10.1, for example), so there may > (eventually) be different minor dist targets in > various build instances and repos (epel10_1, > epel10_2, etc. as additional repos). I do not > recall that this has been fully fleshed out, or > if so, I do not recall it having been fully shared > (either of which may simply mean I am not > paying attention in the right places).
A bit more information on some of the thinking about the epel10.0 dist. Comments involving 3rd party repository implications may be useful to the participants there. _______________________________________________ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
