You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This is much better than with dnf4 variant, where we had to decide server-side (copr-frontend), and we didn't have good enough information about the client machine (is that Alma? is that CentOS Stream? RHEL? What user prefers?).
I'm curious if we could provide some "hint" like info in the /api_3/rpmrepo/<owner>/<project>/ call, saying that some chroots are good enough fallbacks for other chroots (like that epel-10 is a good fallback for rhel+epel-10 and vice versa).
Maybe let the Copr owner decide it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
At this point in time,
dnf5 copr enable
implements the fallback mechanism itself:https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf5/blob/117bc3e552147925ac469179d4c8f79f06a1eaca/dnf5-plugins/copr_plugin/helpers.cpp#L8-L15
This is much better than with dnf4 variant, where we had to decide server-side (copr-frontend), and we didn't have good enough information about the client machine (is that Alma? is that CentOS Stream? RHEL? What user prefers?).
I'm curious if we could provide some "hint" like info in the
/api_3/rpmrepo/<owner>/<project>/
call, saying that some chroots are good enough fallbacks for other chroots (like thatepel-10
is a good fallback forrhel+epel-10
and vice versa).Maybe let the Copr owner decide it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: