On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 8:48 PM Carl George <carl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 5:42 AM Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> There is also the case of the RHEL rebuilds whose users consume EPEL
> packages. Depending how quick they are, the rebuild distros might not
> have their 9.2 rebuild ready for some days/weeks/months after RHEL-9.2
> is first available. My projects' upstream CI is all based on AlmaLinux
> and I don't want to see it broken again by premature capstone retirement
> from EPEL.
Historically, when CentOS was a rebuild, many EPEL maintainers would
wait for corresponding CentOS rebuild release before changing their
EPEL packages to work on RHEL. This was true both for soname rebuilds
and retirements. CentOS would usually take about a month to catch up
to RHEL minor versions. The new rebuilds are doing much better in
this area. Alma is routinely getting their minor versions out 1-2
days after RHEL. The other rebuilds aren't far behind. If we were to
delay package retirements, I don't think it's necessary to delay for
more than a few days.
Do you mean "a few days after both Alma and Rocky are up to the latest release." or "a few days after RHEL is released."?
If you mean "a few days after RHEL is released." then I have to disagree with you.
It does no harm to leave the packages in EPEL for a few weeks/months.
It does harm to rip the packages out too early.
Troy
_______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
