On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 9:33 AM Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 06:55:46AM -0800, Troy Dawson wrote:
> We are currently in the middle of changing the workflow of retiring these
> packages. We are changing it so that the package maintainer doesn't do the
> removing. It will be automated, or semi-automated, so there is a
> consistent time when all of them are removed.
That's a good idea.
> When do you actually remove the packages from the EPEL repository?
> It has been agreed that it will be after both Alma and Rocky have their
> latest release out.
Ok, that's good, and should at least avoid breaking my upstream CI
use case since our containers should transparently start receiving
the 9.2 content when Alma releases their rebuilt container iamges.
> But how long after?
> Immediately after? a month? 6 months?
>
> I personally am leaning towards a month after.
> Here is my reasoning.
> At the time a new RHEL release is released, we take a snapshot of the EPEL
> repo and put it in the archives.
> So all the packages that were built, and run on RHEL 9.1 are available in
> that archive.
snip
> Anyway, if some users are still doing new installs of RHEL 9.1 (or
> compatible) after that month, then they should probably add the epel 9.1
> archive to their yum repositories.
That's interesting, I didn't know about the y-stream archive
snapshots.
Is there any mileage in considering a way to make the use of the epel
9.1 archive automatic so users don't have risk of breakage needing manual
reconfiguration to keep working ?
The current EPEL snapshot archives are flawed. They are done manually
when Fedora Releng remembers. It has happened where packages made it
into a snapshot labeled "EPEL X.Y" that were actually built against
RHEL X.Y+1.
We're actually planning a more robust and holistic approach to solving
this problem for EPEL 10. The full proposal is over on Fedora
Discussion. I cross posted it to this list back in November. Last
month the EPEL Steering Committee approved the general direction of
the plan (without commiting to exact implementation details). Please
check it out and share your thoughts.
https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/epel-10-proposal/44304
eg perhaps have 2 yum repos provided and enabled by epel-release. One
repo URL always the latest release and one repo URL always the current
9.x release number, with a lower priority number set. The latter repo
initially empty of packages, but at the start of 9.2 it receives the
snapshot of 9.1 content, and so becomes dominent over the former repo
which will henceforth be holding 9.2 content.
With regards,
Daniel
--
|:
https://berrange.com -o-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|:
https://libvirt.org -o-
https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|:
https://entangle-photo.org -o-
https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
_______________________________________________
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, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
--
Carl George