Bug 2303892

Will you be able to branch and build systemd-extras in epel10?
The EPEL Packagers SIG would be happy to be a co-maintainer
if you do not wish to build it on epel10.

I will try to work on this, however it makes less sense to me to just branch systemd-extras for epel10 to build the old systemd version.

...especially as some people will yell, if a later update of systemd-extras contains breaking changes.

Yeah it probably makes sense to use 256 for epel10, as that's what's shipping in c10s at the moment.

https://repo.dynavirt.com/stream10/systemd-extras-257.2-1.el10/

+1

Need this for netplan in epel10

+1 we need this for OpenStack-Ansible

Will you be able to branch and build systemd-extras in epel10?
I would be happy to be a co-maintainer if you do not wish
to build it on epel10 (FAS: jonathanspw).

*** Bug 2359219 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Sorry! It's on the top of my to-do list for the weekend.

(In reply to nucleo from comment #5)
> https://repo.dynavirt.com/stream10/systemd-extras-257.2-1.el10/

Could you explain why you added these files to systemd-networkd?

 - /usr/lib/systemd/network/80-6rd-tunnel.link
 - /usr/lib/systemd/network/80-container-vb.link
 - /usr/lib/systemd/network/80-container-ve.link
 - /usr/lib/systemd/network/80-container-vz.link
 - /usr/lib/systemd/network/80-namespace-ns.link
 - /usr/lib/systemd/network/80-vm-vt.link

While targetting 257.7, I run into some issues, of which most have been solved. While it's building, it still needs some polishing and testing (on top of my to-do list for next weekend). And I need to understand whether the *.link files really should be part of systemd-networkd (see comment #11), where help/input is welcome.

I am not maintain packages on that link. I posted link here only as possible solution in absence of package in el10 EPEL.
These files included in systemd package in Fedora but missing el10 systemd, so systemd-networkd looks like only place for them.

systemd .link dropins are processed by udev, not by systemd-networkd, that's likely why they're being shipped in the main systemd package in Fedora.

+1 to .link explanation. While you create them as part as network configuration, it's systemd-udev which process them:
http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/latest/systemd.link.html

nucleo, Davide, Dmitriy: So...what's your expectation? Should systemd-networkd simply ship the *.link files for EL10 (even they are processed by systemd-udev), because systemd in EL10 doesn't do so?

@Robert I personally don't care at all about .link files, as this is part of the networkd configuration. So whenever you create a new interface - you need to also create a .link along with .network and .netdev.
Once new .link files are placed you do restart dbus and systemd-udevd to get devices created. Only then you restart systemd-networkd to configure these devices.
So for me value of default .link files is arguable tbh.

I _think_ you can also check how systemd-networkd is packaged for hyperscale SIG: https://mirror.stream.centos.org/SIGs/10-stream/hyperscale/

Another thing regarding that, is that I've spotted that you're building systemd-extras against stream 10. As for us the reason, why we can't use hyperscale SIG, is because systemd breaks really badly once attempted to be spawned on Rocky/Alma linux (or any other RHEL derivative).

So expectation from EPEL for systemd-extra would be to work outside of CentOS Stream 10, as this is currently a blocker to start upgrades to Rocky/Alma Linux 10 for us.

(In reply to Dmitriy Rabotjagov from comment #17)
> I _think_ you can also check how systemd-networkd is packaged for hyperscale
> SIG: https://mirror.stream.centos.org/SIGs/10-stream/hyperscale/

Thank you for the pointer, will have a look to it.

> Another thing regarding that, is that I've spotted that you're building
> systemd-extras against stream 10. As for us the reason, why we can't use
> hyperscale SIG, is because systemd breaks really badly once attempted to be
> spawned on Rocky/Alma linux (or any other RHEL derivative).

I am not sure what you mean: I built systemd-extras for EL8 and EL9 not against Stream, and as it comes to 10, I will build systemd-extras for both, EL10 and EL10.1 (where latter is currently Stream). Given I also ensure no linking against libsystemd-shared or similar, there is no package dependency from systemd-networkd (and systemd-timesyncd) to a specific systemd version.

> and as it comes to 10, I will build systemd-extras for both, EL10 and EL10.1 (where latter is currently Stream)

Sorry, I just spotted `stream10` in URI in your comment 11 so decided to mention that we're having issue with hyperscale SIG and networkd from there :) EL8 and EL9 always worked perfectly, so I totally trust your judgement here!

Hi! Sorry, are there any updates on the topic?

Hi!

Sorry for pings, but this report is over a year old now and absent systemd-networkd a blocker for us to start consuming EL10.

Do you need any help or maybe co-maintenance of the package?

This package has changed maintainer in Fedora. Reassigning to the new maintainer of this component.

FEDORA-EPEL-2025-b3ba07d093 (systemd-extras-257.9-1.el10_2) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.2.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-b3ba07d093

FEDORA-EPEL-2025-0c72091106 (systemd-extras-257.9-1.el10_1) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.1.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-0c72091106

FEDORA-EPEL-2025-acfc83398c (systemd-extras-257.9-1.el10_0) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.0.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-acfc83398c

FEDORA-EPEL-2025-b3ba07d093 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.2 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-b3ba07d093

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-EPEL-2025-0c72091106 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.1 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-0c72091106

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-EPEL-2025-acfc83398c has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-acfc83398c

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

I'm sorry that it took so long for systemd-extras in EPEL 10.

Oh, by the way, the SELinux policy in RHEL 10.0 doesn't cover systemd-networkd v257. However, it still worked for me, even there were some AVC denials. From what I see in the Git commits the SELinux policy should be updated for RHEL 10.1. In case we need a (temporary) SELinux module for systemd-networkd, some help would be appreciated.

FEDORA-EPEL-2025-b3ba07d093 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.2 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-b3ba07d093

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-EPEL-2025-0c72091106 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.1 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-0c72091106

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-EPEL-2025-acfc83398c has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-acfc83398c

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-EPEL-2025-0c72091106 (systemd-extras-257.9-2.el10_1) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.1 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-EPEL-2025-b3ba07d093 (systemd-extras-257.9-2.el10_2) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.2 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-EPEL-2025-acfc83398c (systemd-extras-257.9-2.el10_0) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.