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!