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 COPR

repos

...

 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 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?

Yeah, that seems to me much easier than having a separate copr repo per package

Pierre