[CentOS-devel] Making EPEL available in CBS for SIG builds

Wed May 5 12:04:53 UTC 2021
Neal Gompa <ngompa13 at gmail.com>

On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 7:59 AM Fabian Arrotin <arrfab at centos.org> wrote:
> On 29/04/2021 23:07, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > Yeah, I think this plan sounds fine. It would require making a import
> > script, that imports as things build in epel, but that should be
> > do-able.
> >
> > kevin
> >
> I started to rsync/pull epel7/8 pkgs for x86_64,aarch64,ppc64le on a
> temporary place and we can start testing importing pkgs.
> *but* it's where it needs probably a little bit of clarification : while
> initial request was to just have access to EPEL pkgs to satisfy
> Requires: and/or BuildRequires: I'm wondering about a redistribution
> policy (if any) for pkgs built on fedora infra and that SIGs would be
> able to just redistribute if they tag such pkg in their own tag (mostly
> for -{testing,release}).
> Each pkg tag for -release would go out on mirror CDN, but signed with
> SIG gpg key
> Is that the workflow that people wanted to see ? It's true that it would
> be easy to consume, and even cherry-pick which ENVR of a pkg to have in
> a repo (so not be forced to upgrade to a newer epel pkg).
> If so, can we have +1 from Fedora infra/Fesco about just importing epel
> pkgs in our koji (to not have to rebuild everything) and so also ship
> pkgs out (but signed again with SIG gpg pub key for repoclosure in their
> own repo)
> Searching for feedback to make progress on this request and not let it
> fall in a hole like last time :)

I would probably suggest instead that we make release packages depend
on epel-release. The package is already shipped in CentOS, so we can
have SIG release packages also depend on it. For example, Davide and I
are prepared already to make Hyperscale's SIG release package depend
on epel-release.

真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!