On 12/17/21 13:44, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 02:59:30PM +0000, lejeczek via CentOS-devel wrote:
On 13/12/2021 21:21, Rich Bowen wrote:
On 12/13/21 12:00, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 11:45, lejeczek via CentOS-devel centos-devel@centos.org wrote:
On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 12:51 PM lejeczek via CentOS-devel
and a month later... It's taking somewhat long.
I'll ask a question not just I must be thinking - obvious rather - is that wise to let one arch be a such a blocker for the whole lot?
It isn't blocking anylonger. You seem to have missed the various emails about EPEL-9 being built for the last several weeks.
https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/9/ https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/testing/9/ https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/next/9/ https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/testing/next/9/
Also https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/epel-9-is-now-available/ on December 3rd.
If it is all functional and ready for consumption - why not include its package in default(s) repo (as it's been with all previous CentOSes) instead of adding more instructions & howtos. Then 'dnf repoinfo' should give out enough info for admin to know what is what.
That's a good question. I'm guessing it's because CS9 is a proper upstream to RHEL9, whereas even CS8 is actually still a rebuild, so CS9 can't ship anything RHEL9 won't ship.
Note how for all RHELs you always have to use DNF with a URL to the epel-release RPM:
In general, this statement is true .. BUT .. specifically for SIG release files, those would be able to be included.