On 17/05/2021 22.10, Kaleb Keithley wrote:
On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 3:46 PM Phil Perry <pperry@elrepo.org mailto:pperry@elrepo.org> wrote:
But from what Mike just said, EPEL/SIGs should _NOT_ be building against those missing -devel packages on Stream because anything built on Stream must also run on RHEL?It took me a while to get my head around this.
The C8 Stream and C9 Stream _buildroots_ have all the packages, including the -devel packages. (For some definition of all.)
If you have privs to build in koji.stream, or CBS (for C8 Stream and some day C9 Stream) then you can expect your build to find the required -devel rpms in the buildroot.
Afaik this is not 100% true for CBS according to information previously provided on this list: Packages have to be imported on a case-by-case approach. I.e., see https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/316
Most (or hopefully all?) shipping package sets don't need the -devel dependencies at run-time. As long as the base packages corresponding to the -devel dependencies are in C8 or C9 Stream (or in RHEL) somewhere, then you should be fine, right?
Or if they're not in one of the C8 or C9 Stream repos (BaseOS, AppStream, Powertools/CodeReadyBuilder) then maybe you'll be able to tag those packages into your SIG repo?
The only place where this sort of falls apart is how to get/use these -devel dependencies on an external build machine, e.g. I have my C9 Stream vm running on my desktop. My only option is to manually download all the "missing" -devel rpms from koji.stream.centos.org http://koji.stream.centos.org and install them that way. Which is less than optimal! I kinda feel like a solution for this is what is being asked for when people ask for a Devel repo.
Yes, that's what people have been asking for here on this list.
To get back to Johnny Hughes' statement/question here: What prohibits "CentOS Stream" from releasing a non RHEL released repository containing all built (sub-) packages not in baseos/appstream/CRB?
So far the only argument rised against this proposal has been that users might expect Red Hat to provide support for these packages. However I do not see why this should be the case? I.e. one could add it to extras similar to how it is currently done for EPEL and others. So far nobody seriously expected Red Hat to officially support packages provided by EPEL.
Peter
Are there any flaws in my understanding?
--
Kaleb
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel