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 COPR repos
>      for release versions:
>      [2]https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/centos-automotive-sig/automotive-image-builder/
>      and
>      [3]https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/centos-automotive-sig/osbuild-auto/.
>      These are automatically built with Packit, triggered by GitLab releases,
>      allowing users to run a-i-b on Fedora.
>      Following the Slack discussion on auto-boot-check COPR builds, I want to
>      address this here. For packages like auto-boot-check, which are built
>      solely for the AutoSD/Automotive SIG and not intended for Fedora release
>      but should be installable from COPR, we need to decide on the repository
>      structure. Should we create a separate COPR repo for each package under
>      the '@centos-automotive-sig' project, similar to a-i-b and osbuild-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?

Pierre