EPEL 10 proposal

[adrian (Adrian Reber)]

@carlwgeorge

@kevin

We have avoided / said we will not support/use symlinks on the master mirrors. We tried long ago and people came out of the woodwork saying they synced to things that didn’t understand symlinks. We could of course try again, but we will likely drop some mirrors if we do.

I feel bad for those folks, but I would hate to block this proposal on something as trivial as symlinks. They’re not exactly a new technology. Classic CentOS, Alma, and Rocky all use symlinks this way (major version symlink pointing to the current major.minor directory). Push come to shove I have no problem dropping mirrors that can’t support symlinks.

I think one of the main reasons for not using symlinks was the sync to S3, but I just saw we do not sync to S3 directly any more for over two years now.

I am pretty sure MirrorManager does not care about symlinks and just ignore them completely. So if this proposal is implemented it probably also needs some support in MirrorManager to correctly handle the symlinks.