Add Rocky 10 repositories

[owenjones]

• some of the RL9 repositories might also be required in RL10 (is there a list of what we want in each image somewhere?), so will possibly need to come back and fix the required flag on those to include them
• it feels like there's scope for templating this a bit better as there's a lot of duplication between RL9 and RL10 entries, but that will need a bit of planning

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request adds support for Rocky 10 repositories by defining new variables and configurations across several YAML files. The changes are extensive and largely mirror the existing setup for Rocky 9. While the approach is sound, I've identified a few critical copy-paste errors in repository URLs that would likely cause failures. I've also included a suggestion for improving naming consistency. Your observation in the PR description about the potential for templating to reduce duplication is a good one and should be considered for future refactoring.

[Alex-Welsh]

This is a good start.
When I added the repos to release train, I included repos for both Epoxy and Gazpacho, which seems to have caused some confusion. I apologise, I should've split those changes out into two PRs.

[Alex-Welsh]

I don't think tentacle is required for this release. We definitely need Squid, and I'm now wondering if we need Reef...

I'll check that and get back to you

[Alex-Welsh]

• some of the RL9 repositories might also be required in RL10 (is there a list of what we want in each image somewhere?), so will possibly need to come back and fix the required flag on those to include them

I think you need a combination of this file and the *.repo files in this directory. Looking at it now, I think I missed kolla_el10 in release train. I'll recheck that soon.

• it feels like there's scope for templating this a bit better as there's a lot of duplication between RL9 and RL10 entries, but that will need a bit of planning

There certainly is. My concern would be there's enough that doesn't overlap that de-duplication of some parts and not others would just add complexity overall. In this case, let's keep going as we have before, but we should think about this for the next release. It would require a bit of planning as you say, and we're a bit late for that this time.