1:18 a.m.
As both RHEL-9 Beta and CentOS 9 Stream are available,
what are the plan for EPEL-9 ?
I really this should be available ASAP to be
available to our users at GA time.
Regards,
Remi
5:29 a.m.
On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 2:18 AM Remi Collet <Fedora(a)famillecollet.com> wrote:
As both RHEL-9 Beta and CentOS 9 Stream are available,
what are the plan for EPEL-9 ?
I really this should be available ASAP to be
available to our users at GA time.
EPEL 9 Next for CentOS Stream 9 is blocked on the migration of our
s390x systems to z15[1], because currently all s390x builds fail[2].
Once that's taken care of, we'll launch EPEL 9 Next.
[1]: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/10302
[2]: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10360
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
8:56 a.m.
On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 3:31 AM Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 2:18 AM Remi Collet
<Fedora(a)famillecollet.com>
wrote:
>
> As both RHEL-9 Beta and CentOS 9 Stream are available,
> what are the plan for EPEL-9 ?
>
>
> I really this should be available ASAP to be
> available to our users at GA time.
EPEL 9 Next for CentOS Stream 9 is blocked on the migration of our
s390x systems to z15[1], because currently all s390x builds fail[2].
Once that's taken care of, we'll launch EPEL 9 Next.
[1]: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/10302
[2]: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10360
Our current goal to have epel9-next completely available for
maintainers/developers is December 1st. Basically one month after RHEL 9
beta was released.
We are hoping to have it available earlier, but as Neal pointed out, we've
got a (known) blocker with the build platform. And it's possible that once
that get's fixed there might be something else we weren't expecting.
So, December 1st is our goal. When it is available, we will announce it on
as many channels as we can.
Troy
8:31 a.m.
On 08. 11. 21 15:56, Troy Dawson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 3:31 AM Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com
<mailto:ngompa13@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 2:18 AM Remi Collet <Fedora(a)famillecollet.com
<mailto:Fedora@famillecollet.com>> wrote:
>
> As both RHEL-9 Beta and CentOS 9 Stream are available,
> what are the plan for EPEL-9 ?
>
>
> I really this should be available ASAP to be
> available to our users at GA time.
EPEL 9 Next for CentOS Stream 9 is blocked on the migration of our
s390x systems to z15[1], because currently all s390x builds fail[2].
Once that's taken care of, we'll launch EPEL 9 Next.
[1]: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/10302
<https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/10302>
[2]: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10360
<https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10360>
Our current goal to have epel9-next completely available for
maintainers/developers is December 1st. Basically one month after RHEL 9 beta
was released.
We are hoping to have it available earlier, but as Neal pointed out, we've got
a (known) blocker with the build platform. And it's possible that once that
get's fixed there might be something else we weren't expecting.
So, December 1st is our goal. When it is available, we will announce it on as
many channels as we can.
Hello Troy.
Is preparing specfiles in the epel9-next branches discouraged at this point? Or
even shipping noarch packages with no arched EPEL-only deps?
Another question I have is the branch structure. Will we start by building from
the eple9-next branches and eventually fork them to epel9 branches once EPEL 9
exists as well?
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
9:07 a.m.
On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 6:31 AM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 08. 11. 21 15:56, Troy Dawson wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 3:31 AM Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com
> <mailto:ngompa13@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 2:18 AM Remi Collet <Fedora(a)famillecollet.com
> <mailto:Fedora@famillecollet.com>> wrote:
> >
> > As both RHEL-9 Beta and CentOS 9 Stream are available,
> > what are the plan for EPEL-9 ?
> >
> >
> > I really this should be available ASAP to be
> > available to our users at GA time.
>
> EPEL 9 Next for CentOS Stream 9 is blocked on the migration of our
> s390x systems to z15[1], because currently all s390x builds fail[2].
> Once that's taken care of, we'll launch EPEL 9 Next.
>
> [1]: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/10302
> <https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/10302>
> [2]: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10360
> <https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10360>
>
>
> Our current goal to have epel9-next completely available for
> maintainers/developers is December 1st. Basically one month after RHEL
9 beta
> was released.
>
> We are hoping to have it available earlier, but as Neal pointed out,
we've got
> a (known) blocker with the build platform. And it's possible that once
that
> get's fixed there might be something else we weren't expecting.
>
> So, December 1st is our goal. When it is available, we will announce it
on as
> many channels as we can.
Hello Troy.
Is preparing specfiles in the epel9-next branches discouraged at this
point? Or
even shipping noarch packages with no arched EPEL-only deps?
If you can get them branched for epel9-next, you can work on them.
Currently a fedpkg that understands epel9-next needs to be built. I used
this pull request [1] and it worked, at least it requested the branch.
The people on the rel-eng team that do the branches need to have their
fedscm-admin updated with the correct patches. I'm told that should happen
today or tomorrow.
If your package is a noarch, and you manage to get it built (koji loves to
put srpm builds on s390x), then yes, run it through bodhi and it should do
it's normal thing and packages will arrive in the epel9-next-testing, and
epel9-next repos
Another question I have is the branch structure. Will we start by
building
from
the eple9-next branches and eventually fork them to epel9 branches once
EPEL 9
exists as well?
Yes, start by building on the epel9-next branches.
When the time comes for epel9, there will be a one-time-only mass merge
over, and mass rebuild.
There was a Flock/Nest talk about that.[2]
After that one time mass merge and rebuild, epel9 and epel9-next will be
just like epel8 and epel8-next are now.
Troy
[1] - https://pagure.io/fedpkg/pull-request/453
[2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naxvolMewgA
3:48 p.m.
On 09. 11. 21 16:07, Troy Dawson wrote:
If you can get them branched for epel9-next, you can work on them.
Currently a fedpkg that understands epel9-next needs to be built. I used this
pull request [1] and it worked, at least it requested the branch.
The people on the rel-eng team that do the branches need to have their
fedscm-admin updated with the correct patches. I'm told that should happen
today or tomorrow.
If your package is a noarch, and you manage to get it built (koji loves to put
srpm builds on s390x), then yes, run it through bodhi and it should do it's
normal thing and packages will arrive in the epel9-next-testing, and epel9-next
repos
I got:
DEBUG util.py:444: No match for group package "epel-release"
DEBUG util.py:444: No match for group package "epel-rpm-macros"
Hence, my package dd not build, because
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-NEXT-2021-341875060f is not
yet stable and I'm blocked on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2001034
Other than that, it seems to build fine.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
12:35 p.m.
On 09. 11. 21 16:07, Troy Dawson wrote:
The people on the rel-eng team that do the branches need to have
their
fedscm-admin updated with the correct patches. I'm told that should happen
today or tomorrow.
Did this actually happen?
My branch request was closed repeatedly:
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/37456
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
12:41 p.m.
Looks like not yet. My branch requests are also getting rejected.
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 10:35 AM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 09. 11. 21 16:07, Troy Dawson wrote:
> The people on the rel-eng team that do the branches need to have their
> fedscm-admin updated with the correct patches. I'm told that should
happen
> today or tomorrow.
Did this actually happen?
My branch request was closed repeatedly:
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/37456
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
12:43 p.m.
On 17. 11. 21 19:41, Troy Dawson wrote:
Looks like not yet. My branch requests are also getting rejected.
I see this comment:
https://pagure.io/fedscm-admin/pull-request/72#comment-157918
It seems like a release is needed. Should I open a ticket?
Or a backport PR to https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedscm-admin?
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
12:50 p.m.
I'd say open a ticket.
At this point, I don't know what the status is. Some step(s) have not been
done.
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 10:44 AM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 17. 11. 21 19:41, Troy Dawson wrote:
> Looks like not yet. My branch requests are also getting rejected.
I see this comment:
https://pagure.io/fedscm-admin/pull-request/72#comment-157918
It seems like a release is needed. Should I open a ticket?
Or a backport PR to https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedscm-admin?
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
12:54 p.m.
On 17. 11. 21 19:50, Troy Dawson wrote:
I'd say open a ticket.
At this point, I don't know what the status is. Some step(s) have not been done.
https://pagure.io/fedscm-admin/issue/73
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
901
days inactive
910
days old
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
10 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Miro Hrončok -
Neal Gompa -
Remi Collet -
Troy Dawson