V Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 06:33:51PM -0700, Michel Alexandre Salim napsal(a): > I'm working on a tool to make it easier to create EPEL branch requests > in the case where there are transitive dependencies that also need to > be branched. > > I'm basing it on > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Getting_a_Fedora_package_in_EPEL > which provides some guidelines and some templates; however, it is a bit > vague on some aspects, namely: > > which product and component should the bug be filed against? > > I've been using Fedora/rawhide (with the FutureFeature keyword) if the package > has never been branched for EPEL before, and 'Fedora EPEL' / epelX (where X is > the branch requested) if it has, however, I can't find a written document > where > this is recommended, though I thought I've read it somewhere in the past. > > If I can simply use Fedora/rawhide, this would simplify the tool a lot: > - we can almost always assume there is a {'product: 'Fedora', 'component': > srpm} > with some rare exceptions e.g. the srpm is in base CentOS but has missing > subpackages (see recent discussion on the topic) > - if the package is branched for EPEL at some point, we can file the request > against {'product': 'Fedora EPEL', 'component': srpm}. But what version to > file > against? > - bpython: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1782782 > phoronix-test-suite: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1976280 > these are the ideal cases; the request is for an 'epel8' branch and > 'epel7' and > 'epel8' are listed as available versions, so the request was filed > against 'epel8' > - nextcloud-client: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1972910 > this is a request for 'epel8-next', but that is not available as a product > > The tool will thus need to query Bugzilla to locate the component on either > Fedora EPEL or Fedora, and then figure out what versions are listed; from my > initial experimentation with python-bugzilla: > https://github.com/python-bugzilla/python-bugzilla > this does not seem trivial. > > If filing against Fedora/rawhide is fine, I can edit the wiki to match. It > should > probably also mention that the EPEL Packagers SIG group can be added as a > co-maintainer, > but I'll experiment with the wording first when testing the tool. > The algorithm for filing bugs is complicated because there are Fedora maintainers who do not want to deal with EPEL. If I were one of them I would feel offended that I'm getting requests for EPEL 8 if there is already EPEL 7 maintainer.
I want to say you should bite the bullet and implement it in the complicated way. -- Petr
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
