centos-sig-hyperscale / sig

#47 add EPEL to our build tags
Closed by dcavalca. Opened by dcavalca.

Closed
Reopen Issue

We've hit a couple of scenarios where we need access to packages from EPEL
- for RPM, we need fsverity-utils-devel (#11)
- for llmv, we need python3-recommonmark (#46)

Is there any downside to just adding EPEL to our build tags? This wouldn't necessarily result in EPEL being required at runtime, unless one in installing a package that specifically pulls a dependency from it (though I could see that being confusing).

Is there a reason we don't want to make EPEL a runtime dependency of our SIG package?

@ngompa I don't know tbh. It would definitely be fine for me and for our usecase at FB, as we already use EPEL everywhere.

Sounds reasonable, just also need to make sure our *-release package depends on epel one.

We also would want to somehow get the PowerTools repo enabled via release package, too. Otherwise lots of EPEL content won't install.

Filed https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/306 per today's meeting discussion (https://www.centos.org/minutes/2021/April/centos-meeting.2021-04-28-16.00.html).

Also posted to -devel: https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2021-April/076793.html

Closing this as EPEL is now available in our tags, and #59 is tracking sorting out the dependency for the -release packages.

Metadata Update from @dcavalca:
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Metadata
None

meeting

None
None
None
Static archive. pagure.io was sunset in 2026; this is a read-only snapshot.
Red Hat Logo

Fedora is sponsored by Red Hat. Learn more about the relationship between Red Hat and Fedora »

© Red Hat, Inc. and others.