----- "James Laska" <jlaska(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> What is the reason to keep repos of unmaintained released in
repoinfo.conf?
> I can't find any usage of it. Currently I would just remove all
unmaintained
> releases and remove 'isactiverelease' keyword as well.
Hmm, yeah. I don't know why I like keeping the old entries around.
But
it does seem silly to continue with old entries that don't work.
Let's
just drop f10 and f11 from repoinfo.conf.
If we don't have other uses for it, I would drop it. We have the history
in git, it can be easily added back again when needed in the future.
> By the way, 'isactiverelease' variable confuses me anyway. Why is
Branched
> active, but Rawhide inactive? I don't understand that.
While it's not 100% clear from the mail thread or the commit log on
this
subject, I understand that the 'isactiverelease' was added to
indicate
what entries has install images available. Wwoods can confirm.
Iirc,
post-tree-compose was failing because install images are no longer
built
and provided for rawhide (and for EOL'd releases [1]). According to
the
comment in repoinfo.py,
getreleases() - '''Return the list of known, non-EOL
releases.'''
Using that definition, Rawhide isn't a Fedora release as installation
images are not provided. Rawhide is just a repository of packages.
I
wonder if it makes sense to rename 'isactiverelease' to
'isinstallable'?
Ah, in that case it makes sense. The variable name could really be
improved to be clearer.
If the variable exists just for this one use case, we can also avoid
it and just disable test scheduling for post-tree-compose tests
for rawhide (hardcoded in control.autoqa). Whatever you like.