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 at 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: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/#_el9 Best, -- Michel Alexandre Salim profile: https://keyoxide.org/michel@michel-slm.name -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 228 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20211217/f7a4a6fb/attachment-0002.sig>