I agree, using .el8.next for the dist macro makes the most sense. This will enable maintainers to use a similar workflow to Fedora branches, where older branches can be fast forwarded, and the same commit can be built for different targets but still have different NVRs in Koji. Here is an example workflow for a fictional foo package that already exists in Fedora. - request epel8 branch - merge master branch to epel8 branch - build epel8 branch, resulting in foo-1-1.el8 - realize it won't install on CentOS Stream due to a library difference - request epel8-next branch - merge epel8 branch to epel8-next branch - build epel8-next branch, resulting in foo-1-1.el8.next After the next RHEL 8 minor release (when that library difference affects everyone), the maintainer can increment the release on the epel8 branch and proceed as usual. On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 1:31 PM Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- Carl George _______________________________________________ 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
