Pavel Raiskup venit, vidit, dixit 2024-08-16 11:06:21: > On čtvrtek 15. srpna 2024 17:02:30, SELČ Michael J Gruber wrote: > > Neal Gompa venit, vidit, dixit 2024-08-15 16:14:30: > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 9:45 AM Pavel Raiskup <praiskup@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > The epel-8-* and epel-9-* chroots in Fedora Copr are aliases > > > > to the "rhel+epel-*" chroots from `mock-core-configs` package. We'd > > > > like to have the same approach for `epel-10` once there's a released > > > > variant of RHEL 10 GA. > > > > > > > > For now though, there's the variant `centos-stream+epel-10` in the new > > > > mock-core-configs release, though: > > > > > > > > https://rpm-software-management.github.io/mock/Release-Notes-Configs-41.1 > > > > > > > > So we could make `epel-10-*` an alias to `centos-stream+epel-10` for the > > > > time being, and do the switch to `rhel+epel-10` later on. Do you think > > > > this makes sense? Or is it just too early? > > > > > > > > > > For EPEL 10, we would never do that switch. CentOS Stream + EPEL is > > > the default case for EPEL 10 now. RHEL + EPEL configs are the > > > alternative. > > Don't you have a documentation link for this? > > > > So we would just have the alias and keep it "forever". > > > > I think we're mixing "mock core config name" and "copr chroot name" in > > this dicussion. > > One of the things Copr tries to do is to use mock-core-configs as-is > (unchanged); while the previous epel-N chroots were tricky, the change > Neal mentioned seems to fix this! We're on the same board here! > > epel-7-x86_64.cfg is the latest epel-* mock config I see in /etc/mock. > > Everything else is explicit (centos-stream+epel, rhel+epel, ...). > > > > The copr chroots epel-* etc always made me look twice what they actually > > are. Even switching the meaning "in between" makes it only. > > Indeed, this is tricky. Another best effort Fedora Copr goal was to > be as close to Fedora Koji as possible. So if Koji builds particular > EPEL-N against {RHEL,CentOS,CentOS Stream}+EPEL, Fedora Copr (and > mock-core-configs, too) wants to do the same thing (even though by > default an official released set of packages is used instead of > pre-release official buildroot). Yep! > > > And I really think epel-* makes no sense since it's always "+" to > > something. EPEL guidelines spell out what is the official base distro > > for which EPEL (next or what not). That is something we could add next > > to the respective chroot in copr (just like the current remarks there). > > The 'epel-10' chroot in Copr and mock-core-configs makes sense for > user's convenience, and I believe we want to have it. That's NB also > the default "dnf copr enable" choice on Enterprise Linux machines. In mock-core-configs probably, because users don't have to look up which config is "for epel-9", e.g., or which release is "rawhide". But there's a difference betwen mock and copr here: - If I built in mock f41 (last week) which is a link to rawhide I in fact used the rawhide buildroot etc, not a copy of it. (disttag f41, and methinks rawhide should link to f41, not vice versa, but that's a different issue) - If I build in mock against chroots for linked mock configs I have separate buildroots and builds. I don't think we want the latter, but I may be wrong. > Can you give me the corresponding link to the EPEL guidelines? I'm not sure whether the target base info is technically part of the policy in the policy page, but that's what I was thinking of: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy/#_policy Cheers Michael -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to 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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
