On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 09:54:00PM -0500, Carl George wrote: > At the EPEL Steering Committee last week, we had an extensive discussion of > this proposal, specifically focused on how to handle the dist macro. I > believe these are the possible choices. > > * keep dist the same as epel8 (.el8) > > RHEL, CentOS Linux, CentOS Stream, and EPEL are all currently using .el8 for > dist. It would make sense to continue using the same dist for EPEL Next. > However, this would put a little more work on packagers. They would not be > able to build the same commit for both EPEL and EPEL Next because the NVR > will conflict in Koji. In simple rebuild situations, this is not a problem > because at a minimum the release will be higher. But if a packager wanted > to update the package in both EPEL and EPEL Next, they will need to first > update and build it in EPEL, then bump the release and build it in EPEL > Next. This isn't ideal, but isn't terrible either, and can be partially > mitigated by good documentation around EPEL Next workflows. > > * modify dist to always be higher than epel8 (.el8.next or similar) > > In EPEL Next we could define dist to a string that RPM evaluates higher than > .el8, such as .el8.next. This would allow EPEL and EPEL Next branches to be > in sync and the same commit could be built for both targets. The higher > dist would ensure the upgrade path works. I think this makes the most sense and will help packages workflows the best. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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
