On 17/05/2021 20:58, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 3:57 PM Mike McGrath <mmcgrath at redhat.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 2:48 PM Phil Perry <pperry at elrepo.org> wrote: >>> >>> On 17/05/2021 20:46, Phil Perry wrote: >>>> On 17/05/2021 20:30, Johnny Hughes wrote: >>>>> On 5/17/21 1:46 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: >>>>>> >> >> >> Snipping content as we seem to have reached some mailing list limit >> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This is mostly because we also don't ship it in RHEL and we don't ship >>>>>> it there because we don't want to be on the hook to support it (even >>>>>> RHEL has a budget and limited resources). >>>>>> >>>>>> As far as CentOS Stream, the promise is that if it runs in CentOS Stream >>>>>> today it should run in the next version of RHEL. By including content >>>>>> in Stream that we don't include in RHEL, suddenly that promise is broken >>>>>> if someone accidentally uses it assuming it's in RHEL. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not saying there aren't ways to work through these issues, but I >>>>>> wanted to give some ideas as to the thought process that got us here. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Mike >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mike, >>>>> >>>>> That is all well and good .. but it is your guys (EPEL and Red Hat SIGs) >>>>> that need this Development content to be in CentOS Stream and the CentOS >>>>> Community Build System to build things. (I can build things as this >>>>> content is already in my Koji buildroot). >>>>> >>>>> And it is me, this list, and the CentOS Stream group that keep getting >>>>> asked (by EPEL and the RH SIGs) why this open source stuff can not be in >>>>> CentOS Linux, CentOS Stream and the CBS. >>>>> >>>>> Surely we can set up a non RHEL released repo that your guys can use to >>>>> build the things that they want. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Johnny Hughes >>>> >>>> >>>> But from what Mike just said, EPEL/SIGs should be building against those >>>> missing -devel packages on Stream because anything built on Stream must >>>> also run on RHEL? >>>> >>> >>> Sorry, typo - EPEL/SIGs should NOT be building against those missing >>> -devel packages... >>> >> >> I'm always confused by this because the basis of CRB *was* supposed to be what was required to build EPEL. I'm not sure if EPEL has grown since we started or if we just missed the mark with CRB. >> > > Unfortunately, I think it's pretty much the latter. :( > > Perhaps this is a policy decision that can be reverted in RHEL 9 as it clearly isn't working very well :-)