IIUC using a name requires source rpm repos to be available/enabled, which is not the default. This would likely work if you have the actual .src.rpm or .spec instead.

...or the source rpm is made available via a repo.

Should we have a source repo definition in our release package?

• CentOS doesn't ship with source repo definitions in centos-stream-repos-8-2.el8.noarch
• Fedora does, e.g. fedora-repos-33-5.noarch has a disabled source repo in fedora.repo

The crucial question is whether there's public infra for hosting src.rpm, and whether they get published. I would expect to find these in http://mirror.centos.org/centos/8-stream/hyperscale/ but there's only binary rpms present.

Yeah thinking about this some more, this may be a general CentOS issue. I remember some conversation on srpms for Steam on -devel but I can't find it right now. @carlwgeorge do you know if there's a plan to publish srpms for Stream (and conversely for SIGs building for Stream) ? I don't see a way to get build-dep to work without that.

Sorry for the late reply. For c9s we're shipping source and debug repos alongside the main repos. There is no plan to do the same for c8s yet, but there is still much still up in the air regarding c8s workflows going forward. We'd like to make them more like c9s and put the package maintainers in charge of their own builds, but it's not clear yet how.

Don't think there's anything to do here.