On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 9:12 AM Stephen Smoogen <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is something I wanted to do in previous EPEL splits, but it has usually > gotten too many complaints from packagers to consider. Many packagers don't > want their packages in EPEL at all but will do so if there are requests from > someone or that there is going to be a branch packager for EPEL packages. > Many EPEL branch packagers really only want to support one release because > that is what they are using versus multiple ones. There is also the case (I had one), where a package (in epel8) was later incorporated by RH into EL9, for which automatic branch requests might have been an issue (unless the automatic approval processes already checks for that and rejects the branch request). > That said, I think it is something to revisit like we did for EL7, EL8 and > EL9 :). Personally, automatic branching would work fine for me, but often my bigger issue is opening the bugzilla tickets for the often large dependency chain for some scripting languages asking for each package to be actually built, and then waiting for the packager to have the resources to build them. If one starts with the premise that the packagers should control the creation of all branches then auto-creating all those dependency branch/build bugzillas (and *their* dependency branch/build bugzillas, and so on) might be a better step forward to reduce the process delays. -- _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
