On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 3:32 PM David Sommerseth <dazo(a)eurephia.org&gt; wrote: I'm surprised that the EPEL 9 chroots haven't switched to RHEL 9 yet. We've had RHEL 9 + EPEL 9 configs for almost a month now... Pavel, do you know when they're going to be deployed to COPR? -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!

On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 4:18 AM Michael J Gruber <mjg(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote: Welcome to "CentOS Stream". The phase lag from Fedora to RHEL has been tough enough, dealing with this sort of issue just makes it worse. It's difficult to avoid this kind of incompatibility, and it's a deliberate choice to destabilize CentOS and to reverse the RHEL/CentOS stability relationship, deliberately compounded by discarding point releases. It used to be possible to work builds from the point releases. It's pretty clear that Red Hat uses some kind of point release system internally, because when the "redhat-release" package and the number listed in /etc/redhat-release and /etc/os-release gets incremented, there is a flood of hundreds of new packages gets released on the same day. I'm assuming that Red Hat uses the previous point release and uses the "stream " repos only when compelled, to avoid just such incompatible upgrades breaking their build environments. The CentOS machines could build from a local, stable snapshot of CentOS, rather than using the current pieces. It's re-inventing the wheel, re-inventing local point releases, and it's a pain to maintain. But it's what some CentOS users feel compelled to do to avoid being unannounced beta testers of new releases without warning. Or they're switching to AlmaLinux, or Rocky Linux. Burning down both point releases and reversing the update relationshp both so close together has led to many companies expressing concern about RHEL and CentOS, and disarding them in favor of Ubuntu.

On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 3:32 PM David Sommerseth <dazo(a)eurephia.org&gt; wrote: Can you run "mock -r rhel+epel-9-x86_64: to test your build's on a local host with mock? You'd have to use a RHEL build server to get access to the RHEL published repos, or if you're a complete weasel like, oh, I dunno, the guy who wrote this, build your own internal RHEL mirrors for mock use? https://github.com/nkadel/nkadel-rsync-scripts/blob/master/reposync-rhel-... It's not full koji deployment, but useful for smoke testing your builds. I use something related for building tool suites for samba, awscli, and ansible. > My latest attempt is available here: > <https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/dsommers/openvpn3/epel... > > And the paradox is that trying 'yum copr enable dsommers/openvpn3' on a > CentOS 9 Stream also doesn't work. But manually downloading and > installing the .repo file, installing 'openvpn3-client' works smooth on > CentOS 9 Stream. > > Is this a known issue? Shouldn't EPEL-9 repository builds happen on > proper RHEL-9? And buildi > ng on CentOS 9 Stream sounds wrong as well. > > Doing the EPEL-9 build on Fedora Koji works fine and installs fine. > <https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=88073281> > > > In addition, trying to do a build with the proper CentOS 9 Stream > repository also fails - as the moce config used there is the plain > centos-stream-9-x86_64, not the '+epel' variant used in EPEL-9. > > I do understand this last issue (CentOS 9 Stream build) is different > from the EPEL-9 build issue. > > > Any advice would be appreciated. > > > -- > kind regards, > > David Sommerseth > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure