On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 5:19 AM Petr Pisar <ppisar(a)redhat.com> wrote:
V Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 04:47:33AM -0400, Neal Gompa napsal(a):
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 4:41 AM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 08. 07. 21 2:28, Mohan Boddu wrote:
> > > Also, people who wish to opt out of this mass rebuild can add
> > > 'noautobuild' file to the epel9-next branch beforehand, this
however
> > > does not stop from creating the epel9 branch, just the package won't
> > > be included in the rebuild.
> >
> > I think there are 3 possible opt outs here:
> >
> > 1) The epel9-next packager does not intent to maintain the package in epel9,
> > only in epel9-next. While we might not like this goes, as long as there is no
> > policy against this approach, always creating the branch will create work for
> > the packager they have not signed for. I think there should be an opt out for
> > branching as well.
> >
>
> This is not a valid use-case.
Why?
If you were a CentOS user who moved to CentOS Stream, then you are going to
use epel9.next. You have no use of epel9.
That is not the point of epel-next. It's only intended to be a overlay
for resolving issues between RHEL minor releases (or in this case,
bootstrapping before RHEL major releases are actually out).
EPEL-next is usually layered on top of EPEL, not the other way around.
I'm proposing we layer EPEL on EPEL-next just long enough to do a mass
rebuild cycle to populate EPEL9, then revert to the normal setup.
--
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!