Add rhel to the PR template

[Ryanf55]

When working on #37226, I saw in the logs rhel was suggested, but it's not part of the PR template. I used the same package URL for rhel as recommended in the logs.

Let me know if you think it should be added.

[clalancette]

I have two questions about this:

1. Does this include packages that would be included as part of EPEL/crb? That is a valid places for packages to come from for RHEL.
2. Do we really have to hard-code this to 9.2? It means that we'll have to update this template every time RHEL does a new update. Is there another URL we can use that doesn't hard-code this?

[clalancette]

Also, @cottsay can you take a look here?

[Ryanf55]

I have two questions about this:

1. Does this include packages that would be included as part of EPEL/crb? That is a valid places for packages to come from for RHEL.
2. Do we really have to hard-code this to 9.2? It means that we'll have to update this template every time RHEL does a new update. Is there another URL we can use that doesn't hard-code this?

Sorry, I am not able to answer either of those. I was just copying what the CI was telling me. I'm not a rhel user. From my research, it seems like you need an account to search packages on the official registry. Perhaps we just link that?

[clalancette]

@cottsay Friendly ping here, it would be nice to figure out how to make RHEL a valid target without hard-coding the exact point version.

[github-actions]

This PR hasn't been activity in 14 days. If you are still are interested in getting it merged please provide an update. Otherwise it will likely be closed by a rosdistro maintainer following our contributing policy. It's been labeled "stale" for visibility to the maintainers. If this label isn't appropriate, you can ask a maintainer to remove the label and add the 'persistent' label.

[cottsay]

Question for @clalancette and @nuclearsandwich - how would you feel about recommending an unofficial package database like pkgs.org?

[clalancette]

Question for @clalancette and @nuclearsandwich - how would you feel about recommending an unofficial package database like pkgs.org?

I personally think that is fine; it gives relevant and correct information, as far as I know (I use it myself to double-check some rosdep keys).

[nuclearsandwich]

how would you feel about recommending an unofficial package database like pkgs.org?

I'm not opposed to using "unofficial" resources as long as there is a good track record of accuracy, especially if they're more accessible than the official databases.

[github-actions]

This PR hasn't been activity in 14 days. If you are still are interested in getting it merged please provide an update. Otherwise it will likely be closed by a rosdistro maintainer following our contributing policy. It's been labeled "stale" for visibility to the maintainers. If this label isn't appropriate, you can ask a maintainer to remove the label and add the 'persistent' label.