#12410 please create epel10 based el10-openjdk tag
Closed: Fixed 2 months ago by jnsamyak. Opened 6 months ago by jvanek.

As per rules as described here:
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/11848

and as we do in fedoras:
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12364

I guess tehre sno rush on that. TY! If it is to early, thats ok by me. I will elaborate later.


Metadata Update from @jnsamyak:
- Issue assigned to jnsamyak

6 months ago

Metadata Update from @kevin:
- Issue tagged with: low-gain, low-trouble, ops

6 months ago

Hey @jvanek,

just to confirm, I wanted to double-check on the naming convention since, we are using epel10.0 tags for this, do you want to change the tag nomenclature to el10.0-openjdk?

Here's an example what I had in my mind:

koji add-tag ep10.0-openjdk --parent=epel10.0-build --arches=x86_64,aarch64,ppc64le,s390x
koji add-target el10.0-openjdk el10.0-openjdk
koji regen-repo el10.0-openjdk

hi! Thanx for heads up. What the .0 will be for? I had noticed it in the builds, and was surprised ny its existence. I doubt that epel will ever follow the rhel's major_minor of each major. Epel is just rolling? On contrary, if you would create jsut el10-openjdk it would mean that you would need to edit thsi tag?

I doubt that epel will ever follow the rhel's major_minor of each major.

That is precisely what is happening in EPEL 10. We don't have this fully documented yet, mainly because EPEL 10 hasn't officially launched yet, but it is described in detail in the original proposal discussion thread. There is also a more up to date summary from the CentOS Connect conference earlier this year.

https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/epel-10-proposal/44304

https://youtu.be/mUoI0rqWfmY

Epel is just rolling?

EPEL has never been rolling (and by policy doesn't allow rolling packages), but it has been major version only until now.

On contrary, if you would create jsut el10-openjdk it would mean that you would need to edit thsi tag?

I'm not sure exactly what the best approach for openjdk would be. We had a similar question come up in #12334 for the openh264 tags. We decided that the best approach in that case will be to follow the minor versions. We've built in a step to the work-in-progress EPEL SOP to clone the epel10.0-openh264 tag to create an epel10.1-openh264 tag when the time comes. Specifically, we'll run koji clone-tag --all --latest-only epel10.0-openh264 epel10.1-openh264, which will duplicate the configs, groups, package lists, and builds. Do you think that would work for the way you're using the openjdk tags? I saw your description in one of the issues you linked as a "permanent protected sidetag". I would lean towards handling this the same way as openh264 and using minor versions, just to avoid doing something non-standard.

In those cases, I think these works, CC: @jvanek

koji add-tag el10.0-openjdk --parent=epel10.0-build --arches=x86_64,aarch64,ppc64le,s390x
koji add-target el10.0-openjdk el10.0-openjdk
koji regen-repo el10.0-openjdk

@jvanek, are we okay to create with the above rules as mentioned in the commands?

hi! I think so. I will be following the minor versions. Only we wull need to create el10.1- openjdk, el10.2-openjdk ... in future. Tahnx!

I can see both epel10 and epel10.0 appearig in java-latest-openjd{-portable} .. what is teh expected workflow? 10.1 will later fork from epel10 or from epel10.0 ?

Thanx! I had read that. And I placed my Question wrongly.
I need epel10, so I need el10-openjdk - that is latest/next released.
The epel10.x, and so el10.x-openjdk, seems like optional, right? Or is it recommended that at the time of el10.10 I will maintain all/subset of el10.xyz ? In theory, I think I'm interested only in el10..IDK... I would add all 10x on demand.

koji add-tag el10.0-openjdk --parent=epel10.0-build --arches=x86_64,aarch64,ppc64le,s390x
koji add-target el10.0-openjdk el10.0-openjdk
koji regen-repo el10.0-openjdk

These are now active, in case you need tags for minor versions please feel free to open a separate ticket for those!

cf: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=129607239

Metadata Update from @jnsamyak:
- Issue close_status updated to: Fixed
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

2 months ago

@jnsamyak hi! TYVM!
I still do not understand, why I need only el10.0-openjdk and not the el10-opendjk. If you will be so kind and try to tell me again, it would be most appreciated? I got it as el10-opendjk is some kind of rolling future el10.x+1-opendjk, but it is not?

Log in to comment on this ticket.

Metadata
Boards 1
Ops Status: Backlog