On 5/5/21 7:30 AM, Kaleb Keithley wrote: > > > On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 7:59 AM Fabian Arrotin <arrfab at centos.org > <mailto: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). > > > I'm not sure I see a need to copy+sign+mirror EPEL packages for the SIGs. > > I'd rather see people get them from EPEL directly. > That is fine .. IF .. you don't need repoclosure on the repo+centos. I also think it is OK. I guess if you are building against EPEL .. you need to include epel-release as a require for your package .. otherwise .. people with centos installed can not install items from your SIG until they set up EPEL. That is the whole purpose of including them in the SIG. If people get the repos needed enabled, I have no issues building directly against EPEL and requiring epel-release in your <SIG>-release package.