Repos: Add definitions for AlmaLinux 9.7, 9.8, 10.1 and 10.2

[eabdullin1]

Add AlmaLinux 9.7 and 9.8 repositories.
Add AlmaLinux 10.1 and 10.2 repositories.
Use vault.almalinux.org instead of repo.almalinux.org for AlmaLinux 9.5, 9.4 and 8.9.

For now, it’s expected that the repositories are not available.

[achilleas-k]

Thank you!

[bcl]

I confirmed that the GPG keys match those available from https://repo.almalinux.org/almalinux/

But there are no 10.1, 10.2, 9.7 or 9.8 repos at those URLs.

[eabdullin1]

I confirmed that the GPG keys match those available from https://repo.almalinux.org/almalinux/

But there are no 10.1, 10.2, 9.7 or 9.8 repos at those URLs.

It’s not available at the moment.
Is it required to have these links working?
If so, is it okay to use mirrorlist instead of baseurl? In that case, our mirror service will redirect to the latest stable version if the requested one is not available.

[supakeen]

I confirmed that the GPG keys match those available from https://repo.almalinux.org/almalinux/
But there are no 10.1, 10.2, 9.7 or 9.8 repos at those URLs.

It’s not available at the moment. Is it required to have these links working? If so, is it okay to use mirrorlist instead of baseurl? In that case, our mirror service will redirect to the latest stable version if the requested one is not available.

We could of course add these repositories only after the repositories become available, but this means shipping an update (or downstream patch) to make them available in any of the search paths for image-builder / osbuild-composer.

I'm not particularly against having them even when the repositories are not-yet available which is why I initially approved. We do so each cycle for Fedora.

The effect is that these versions will show up in image-builder list (or other places) but be unbuildable by users because the repositories will 404. If you do the mirrorlist and redirect to 'latest' then people might not get what they want. In that case I'd prefer them to 404.

@achilleas-k / @thozza what do you think about this? How should this be managed?

[bcl]

Ah, so they are not expected to be there yet, maybe add a note to that effect in the commit message.
Redirecting via mirror to a different release is not a good idea, then the user will get unexpected content.

[bcl]

Thanks!

[supakeen]

Note that we hope to have something better for managing this at the distribution level in the (maybe near, maybe a little bit further) future.