With `image-builder` having been released into CentOS/RHEL we should no
longer ship updates for EPEL.
Signed-off-by: Simon de Vlieger <supakeen@redhat.com>
We've had issues proposing downstream for epel9-next due to branch name
failures. Let's see if this resolves that.
Signed-off-by: Simon de Vlieger <supakeen@redhat.com>
Instead of directly releasing to epel-9 we should release into
epel-9-next and do manual merges/releases when/if RHEL and/or CentOS
catch up with our dependencies.
Signed-off-by: Simon de Vlieger <supakeen@redhat.com>
Let's ship our package in epel-9 and epel-10 as well as all the
supported Fedora branches. I've manually created, built, and created
updates for these branches already.
I'm not adding automation to the epel-10.0 branch in this PR as we need
to probably consider that more carefully. However, I *have* submitted
version 13 for epel-10.0 manually.
Signed-off-by: Simon de Vlieger <supakeen@redhat.com>
Since our upstream repository name differs from the downstream name we
should set the `downstream_package_name` [1] config option.
[1]: https://packit.dev/docs/configuration#downstream_package_name
Signed-off-by: Simon de Vlieger <supakeen@redhat.com>
`image-builder` will be the main entrypoint into the Image Builder
stack. We will rename the repositories later on; but let's start
referring to it in its new official name.
Signed-off-by: Simon de Vlieger <supakeen@redhat.com>
FWIW, I never get || and && correctly in Bash for the first time :D
Also handle the case then the repository does not contain any version
tags yet by defaulting to "1".
Signed-off-by: Tomáš Hozza <thozza@redhat.com>
Packit needs golang to be installed when we build SRPM, because we need
to vendor code to generate the archive.
Moreover, we need to vendor code to be able to modify SPEC port upstream
clone to include bundled code.
Signed-off-by: Tomáš Hozza <thozza@redhat.com>
