kparal added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
I was thinking we could just do away with 'rawhide' and
switch always to numbers, but I agree the downside there is that you no longer really
'know' you are on rawhide and you would have to make choices around the branching
point. Or I suppose we could still have a fedora-release-rawhide subpackage to denote
that, but switch everything to using the numbers otherwise.
I think some people will definitely want to have an always-Rawhide machine, without doing
manual changes every 6 months. So the `fedora-release-rawhide` subpackage would definitely
be useful.
There are two ways to do that, I think. The special `Provides` can set
`releasever=rawhide`, as I suggested. That means that MirrorManager would still need to
support `releasever=rawhide` in URLs and redirect to the correct number. Baseurls would
probably be partially broken, because you can't use symlinks on mirrors (any hope in
improving that in future?). The advantage is that just a simple change on Fedora servers
(pointing `rawhide` elsewhere) would immediately serve the right content to all such
machines.
The second option is to set `releasever=NN`, and after the branching point, issue an
update that sets `releasever=NN+1`. The next dnf update would then pull from NN+1 repos,
updating `fedora-release`, and thus updating distribution version. The upside is that
Fedora Releng doesn't need to bother with `rawhide` redirects (even though, some
people could still find them useful to exist). The downside is that Releng needs to bother
with updating `fedora-release*` in stable releases, and the system would be upgraded to
the new Rawhide one update later than in the first option (the first `dnf update` to
install updated `fedora-release-rawhide`, the second `dnf update` to upgrade to the new
Rawhide). Probably not a big deal, and I can't think of any further drawbacks now.
It sounds to me like Proposed solution 2 might be the best way
forward. It's unclear to me from reading the copr ticket if they were ok with that
solution or not?
@clime didn't like maintaining symlinks or keeping the repo content duplicated in
several directories. The symlink or duplication is required, though, in cases where a
release can be addressed in multiple ways (`releasever=rawhide` vs `releasever=NN`). The
argument also was that they're doing it the same way Fedora Releng does (except for
having a MirrorManager). If Fedora Releng changed their ways, perhaps they would
reconsider (can't speak for them, @clime, can you comment)?
It occurs to me, though, that if you opted for the second proposed option of always
setting `releasever=NN` (numerical only), they would never receive `releasever=rawhide`
requests, and they wouldn't need to bother with the `rawhide/` symlink. It would be
simpler for them, and if the user had *Follow Fedora branching* enabled in COPR, they
would just create a repo definition + new directory for the new Rawhide (and either copy
contents from Rawhide-1 or not, I don't know their current practice, but only once,
not regularly). Perhaps they could accept this behavior. The only downside is
compatibility, their current Rawhide repos have `rawhide/` hardcoded in them, so users
would need to update their repo files.
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7445