On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 5:26 PM Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Dne 20. 11. 21 v 0:04 Troy Dawson napsal(a):
> Do we keep everything in epel9-next until RHEL9 GA and then do a mass branch over
and mass rebuild? (Plan A)
And again with 9.1 GA? And again with 9.2 GA? // I do not expect answer, just pointing
that minor releases should be
part of the solution.
Miroslav
_______________________________________________
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
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@lists.fedoraproj...
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Historically most EPEL packages don't need to be rebuilt with every
minor release, as RHEL libraries don't change often. When they do
need to be rebuilt, it's been left up to the individual maintainers to
take care of as their time allows. This has mostly worked OK for us.
Plan A would be a departure from the norm, where we do a mass rebuild
at 9.0 for a "bootstrap" of epel9 content from epel9-next. At the
last EPEL Steering Committee meeting we talked about doing mass
rebuilds at every future minor release, but more or less agreed that
this would be overkill and would result in a drastic increase in disk
usage in the infrastructure. Additionally our existing mass rebuild
tooling doesn't account for changes that exist in the epel9-next
branches that need to be merged to the epel9 branches before building.
Plans B and C are more like the status quo, where packagers target
epel9, and do individual package rebuilds as needed after a RHEL minor
release.
--
Carl George