On Fri, Aug 28, 2020, at 6:11 PM, Troy Dawson wrote: > On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 2:10 PM Troy Dawson <tdawson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 11:12 AM kevin <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 02:50:39PM -0300, Pablo Sebastián Greco wrote: > > > > > > > > On 21/8/20 19:06, Troy Dawson wrote: > > > > > > > > C) Drop playground. Say it was an interesting experiment and we > > > > > learned stuff, but shut it down. > > > > > (and clean up the package.cfg files as part of shutting it down) > > > > > > > > > > D) > > > > > 1 - Manual builds only. No package.cfg files. No automatic builds. > > > > > 2 - Assume playground depends on epel8. > > > > > 3 - Use CentOS 8 Stream to build against. > > > > > > > > > > I am leaning towards option D. > > > > > We've already got all the playground infrastructure setup. I don't > > > > > want to waste that. So, although I said option C in the meeting, that > > > > > doesn't mean I want it, I was just stating it was an option. > > > > I like option D too, looks like a more polished version of option B > > > > > > Do we have any data here? > > > > > > Are stream changes breaking epel packages so that they need rebuilds > > > often? > > > > > > It will mean that if someone wants to use playground to test some large > > > change in epel, they will have to find people who also enable stream to > > > test it most likely? > > > > > > Do we know that many/any people are consuming stream all the time? > > > > > > We also don't have much way to say 'if you enable epel8-playground you > > > have to enable stream repos also'. > > > > > > I guess I don't think the yummy to trouble ratio is good enough here to > > > justify the trouble of enabling stream. Can you expand on why this is > > > good/what it gets us? > > > > > > > Pros for building against stream: > > - We would have a way to test EPEL packages that matter against the > > not yet released RHEL version. > > -- How often would this matter? > > -- It's hard to say. There might not be a single EPEL package needing > > this for the entire RHEL 8.3 release. > > -- I know for the 8.2 release, I would have liked it so I would have > > had a place to let others test my updated KDE. > > --- But I found a work around, so I didn't have to have it. > > > > Cons for building against stream: > > - I think you've hit on a big thing. For those wanting a major > > change, but don't care about stream, then playground becomes useless. > > -- So this cuts down on the usefulness of playground. Packagers who > > want a major change in their package, and are working on stream. > > - HERE IS THE BIGGEST CON AGAINST USING STREAM > > -- CentOS Stream is only going to be based on RHEL8 until RHEL9 comes > > out. At some point after that, it switches to being based off RHEL9. > > --- This means that infrastructure is going to have to switch > > everything back to being built off RHEL. > > --- We will have to re-document things. > > --- More confusion if we had go the CentOS Stream route. > > > > Troy > > At the EPEL Steering Committee Meeting, this was discussed again. > I believe we all agree that having -playground build off Stream isn't > a good thing. > But we are also concerned about possible library changes in RHEL8 that > might affect EPEL8 packages, and having something based off Stream > would be good. > Here is the proposal. > Note: A) was re-written with better wording than above. > > A) epel8-playground > 1 - Manual builds only. No package.cfg files. No automatic builds. > 2 - Assume playground depends on epel8. > 3 - Built off RHEL8 and CentOS Devel, just like epel8 is built. > > E) epel8-next > 1 - Manual builds only. No package.cfg files. No automatic builds. > 2 - Assume -next depends on epel. > 3 - Built off CentOS Stream. > 4 - Has a limited lifetime that corresponds with the CentOS Stream / > RHEL lifetime. > -- In other words, after CentOS Stream switches from RHEL8 to RHEL9, > then epel8-next get's archived. > > If people are wondering about the name, it was decided to use -next > instead of -stream, due to the overuse of 'stream' among other > reasons. > > Thoughts? Sounds like the perfect solution to me! V/r, James Cassell _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
