On 12/07/16 16:06, Brian Stinson wrote: >> What would be the option for this ? >> Actually the direct option is for the ConfigMgmt SIG to just tag that >> build (for example for ansible-2.1.0.0-1.el7) so that it will appear in >> the correct repositories, but I'm wondering if such SIG wouldn't have to >> be considered "authoritative" and so having to discuss/bump/build new >> releases, and then other SIGs can just consume/tag a specific build/ENVR >> they want in their own repositories. > >> -- >> Fabian Arrotin >> The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org >> gpg key: 56BEC54E | twitter: @arrfab > > > I don't think we have a way to enforce anything, other than relying on > the SIGs to know their 'downstreams'. It might be good for us to start > with a matrix of packages (which in the short-term will be hard to > maintain). Perhaps we're at the point where enough of this is happening > that we should start investigating a simple pkgdb. just a regular update from the SIG's around content would be a good way to have some visibility around packages available and consumeable. from the storage sig side of things, a couple of other SIGs already tag content over rather than produce it locally. regards -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc