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 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 > In general, this statement is true .. BUT .. specifically for SIG release files, those would be able to be included.