In light of the announcement, but also specifically:
https://centos.org/distro-faq/#q8-i-need-to-buildtest-my-packages-for-epel-locally-which-i-used-centos-for-centos-stream-will-have-different-abiapi-at-times-so-my-builds-wont-work-with-that
https://centos.org/distro-faq/#q9-epel-8-needs-access-to-packages-which-are-not-shipped-by-rhel-but-were-made-available-by-centos-how-is-this-going-to-be-solved
...it seems appropriate to open up a discussion here.
With point releases, at least there was the possibility of flag days
around EPEL ABI changes, however with a rolling release format there
seems to need to be an active synchronization around such changes, as
"expected" breakages aren't really occurring around a public release cycle.
Beyond this, I feel like the situation between the RHEL, CentOS, and
Fedora groups here is becoming more and more untenable. If CentOS Linux
is going away (after EL7), then there really needs to be more clarity
about what mainline EPEL is targeting. And if there's a version of EPEL
that's going to target CentOS Stream after all (and it's not EPEL
Playground), then it needs to be marked as such.
(And, IMHO, it raises even more questions about that being under
Fedora's aegis rather than that of the "community" it's serving.)
-jc
_______________________________________________
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
