On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 11:28 AM Pierre-Yves Chibon pingou@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 10:29:39AM +0200, Martin Perina via automotive-sig wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 3:08 PM Mark Kemel via automotive-sig <[1]automotive-sig@lists.centos.org> wrote:
Hello all, Currently we have two packages, for which we have dedicated COPRrepos
for release versions: [2]https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/centos-automotive-sig/automotive-i...
and [3]https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/centos-automotive-sig/osbuild-auto... .
These are automatically built with Packit, triggered by GitLabreleases,
allowing users to run a-i-b on Fedora. Following the Slack discussion on auto-boot-check COPR builds, Iwant to
address this here. For packages like auto-boot-check, which arebuilt
solely for the AutoSD/Automotive SIG and not intended for Fedorarelease
but should be installable from COPR, we need to decide on therepository
structure. Should we create a separate COPR repo for each packageunder
the '@centos-automotive-sig' project, similar to a-i-b andosbuild-auto,
or should we group these packages into repos by usage? For instance, should auto-boot-check release builds be done within the automotive-image-builder repo?I'd think it depends how tied together the packages are and if they are released together or at different rhythms. I can see pros and cons to both approaches
I think it would be beneficial to have an official repository for
Fedora,
which will contain releases of the same packages as we have in AutoSD.
So you're thinking 1 COPR repo for fedora builds of all the AutoSD packages?
Yeah, that seems to me much easier than having a separate copr repo per package
Pierre