Build ogr just for stable releases #897
Conversation
.packit.yaml
Outdated
| @@ -77,7 +77,6 @@ jobs: | |||
| targets: | |||
| - fedora-stable | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
fedora-stable still includes F40 that fails
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually not sure what we want to do here… we could probably omit targets altogether and deduce from the Copr settings, but that would mean that we need to remove this entry from all of specfile, ogr, packit, cause either of them could “reset” the F40 and EL9 back.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have already started removing things in packit, https://github.com/packit/packit/pull/2549/files. At least we should remove epel9 there. And use fedora-latest instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if we intend to move our deployments with Fedora releases, then I guess we could use fedora-latest
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if we intend to move our deployments with Fedora releases, then I guess we could use
fedora-latest
Hm, but if we forget will we be able to notice (soon enough) that the images contain some old builds?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As long as we're talking about packit/packit-stable Copr, I would say it would be enough to deduce the targets from Copr and adjust the release in images and Copr repo at the same time, manually.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That also means we should eradicate targets: […] in all repos that build in packit/packit-stable…
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not sure I follow, why using fedora-latest our images could use old builds?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not sure I follow, why using
fedora-latestour images could use old builds?
If we bump (or not bump) the base image without adjusting the Copr settings (or config here), we will start pulling the dependencies from official Fedora repository (which will not necessarily be the same as us moving the stable and using Copr repo)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what about going with fedora-latest-stable?
majamassarini
force-pushed
the
copr_builds_just_in_stable
branch
from
4427b7c to
c47b4f1
Compare
|
Build succeeded. ✔️ pre-commit SUCCESS in 2m 49s |
majamassarini
force-pushed
the
copr_builds_just_in_stable
branch
from
c47b4f1 to
20fc293
Compare
|
Build succeeded. ✔️ pre-commit SUCCESS in 2m 55s |
majamassarini
force-pushed
the
copr_builds_just_in_stable
branch
from
20fc293 to
072a51e
Compare
|
Build succeeded. ✔️ pre-commit SUCCESS in 2m 53s |
majamassarini
force-pushed
the
copr_builds_just_in_stable
branch
from
072a51e to
e8ecfcb
Compare
|
Build succeeded. ✔️ pre-commit SUCCESS in 2m 49s |
.packit.yaml
Outdated
| @@ -108,4 +107,4 @@ jobs: | |||
| - packit | |||
| dist_git_branches: | |||
| - fedora-all | |||
| - epel-9 | |||
| - epel-10-all | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We need to coordinate this with specfile and packit.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes, I have already changed the packit .packit.yaml file but I didn't push it, if this is what you mean. I was waiting to see the build succeed in ogr... but I don't see any build/test for epel10 here, after my push. Are we still taking the config from the head of a PR?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are no builds because the epel-10-all alias doesn't work yet.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I will wait tomorrow, that fedora-distro-aliases should reach stable update, to test this PR properly and also push the packit one.
.packit.yaml
Outdated
| @@ -96,7 +95,7 @@ jobs: | |||
| trigger: release | |||
| dist_git_branches: | |||
| - fedora-all | |||
| - epel-9 | |||
| - epel-10-all | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would rather do this (same for propose_downstream):
| - epel-10-all | |
| epel-10: | |
| fast_forward_merge_into: | |
| - epel-10-branched |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But if we are not doing it for Fedora on purpose, then I suppose it makes sense to have divergent branches in EPEL 10 too.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I thought that we could start with the same commits, until we can at least. And than when we are forced we can diverge.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I mean, without fast_forward_merge_into, the epel10.0 branch will have different commit hashes than epel10.
majamassarini
force-pushed
the
copr_builds_just_in_stable
branch
from
e8ecfcb to
1af3e1c
Compare
|
Build succeeded. ✔️ pre-commit SUCCESS in 4m 22s |
epel9 is no more supported due to pyforgejo. Build in packit-stable copr project the package only for the latest stable Fedora.
majamassarini
force-pushed
the
copr_builds_just_in_stable
branch
from
1af3e1c to
ec67494
Compare
|
Build succeeded. ✔️ pre-commit SUCCESS in 2m 55s |
|
In the end we decided to remove both epel9 and epel10, since there are missing dependencies (gitlab bugzilla and pygithub bugzilla). |
|
Build succeeded (gate pipeline). ✔️ pre-commit SUCCESS in 2m 51s |
softwarefactory-project-zuul
bot
merged commit e0498a6
into
packit:main
in copr packit-stable project