On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 10:47:53AM -0700, Ken Dreyer wrote: > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 9:53 AM Niels de Vos <ndevos at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > Opinions? > > The biggest reason I want to exclude the package server side is that > will allow repoclosure to pass for the repo. repoclosure provides me a > sanity-check that the entire "product" is installable and I'm not > missing any packages. With the way we're growing more and more > packages, I want to make this as automated as possible. Ideally > repoclosure would automatically gate a package going from -candidate > to -testing. Yes, I understand that. This is an item on my wishlist for the Gluster repositories for a looong time already. > One problem I see with configuring this exclusion client side is that > I'm not sure I can rely on everyone using the exact same .repo file. I > eventually want to ship packaged mock configs for Ceph, so we'd have > to duplicate that there as well :( Ah, yes. I have my mock-config files from the 'cbs' tool, but it is not friendly for others to use. Packaging them would be really nice too. > I'd like to know if the CentOS admins plan to stay on mash long-term, > and if so, let's look into filtering at that level, like Pungi can do. > What do you think? This definitely would have my preference as well! Thanks, Niels