[EPEL-devel] Re: Recent epel 8 branchs - no tag of package in epel
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 15:08:32 +0100 Steve Traylen wrote: > Hi, > > > Last couple of days the epel8 branch requests have been processed > okay. Thanks > > However when you then try and build something it results in > > BuildError: package X not in list for tag epel8-playground-pending > > > Example: > > > https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/19622 > https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/19623 > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=38994106 > > has occurred for multiple recently branched packages. I think earlier > in the week all was good. It seems to be fixed now. So far so good anyway. Paul. ___ 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
[EPEL-devel] Re: Python bindings for protobuf on RHEL/CentOS/EPEL 8
Hi Denis, On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 3:13 PM Denis Arnaud wrote: > > Hi, > > the Python (3) bindings are missing on RHEL/CentOS/EPEL 8 for the protobuf > package (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/protobuf). > A bug request has been created on Bugzilla > (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1765844), but as no status has > been given, I was wondering whether someone could shed some light on the > context. > > Since protobuf is a RedHat core package (maintained by RedHat and therefore > not managed by Fedora/EPEL), it appears as a kind of black box from Fedora > perspective. On Fedora (Rawhide, 31), the Python (3) bindings are > generated/packaged (see for instance > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-e3a662fe8b and > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=19440119), but for some > reason, those Python bindings are not generated by RedHat for RHEL/CentOS 8. > > 1. Would anyone from RedHat be able to provide some heads up on why those > Python 3 bindings are missing for Protobuf, and/or an approximate timeline > for when it would be generated? python3-protobuf is one of many packages built, but not released with RHEL8. Why were they not released? Red Hat did not want to support them. Is there an official page you can go to that explains why and which ones? Not that I know of. For EPEL we have been creating issues that list what is missing, and what it affects. https://hackmd.io/@ssmoogen/B1p2QM-eS#Known-Issues (Item 8 in known issues) > 2. Would RedHat need help with packaging protobuf on RHEL/CentOS/EPEL 8? Those are three different groups. RHEL - nope CentOS - Currently being worked on. There is a thread on centos-devel explaining the problems they've been having getting these missing packages into their own module and/or repo. https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2019-November/018082.html https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2019-November/018097.html EPEL8 - For a couple of the packages someone has created a separate package. In this case it would be python3-protobuf. do I recommend this? Not really. > 3. Would you recommend another way for Fedora packagers/users to get their > hands on the python3-protobuf/protobuf-python3 package? For instance, through > COPR, or some module we may have missed. > There have been several people that used COPR to provide some of these missing packages. Do I know of any for python3-protobuf? No, but that doesn't mean they don't exisit. This might be your fastest route. Searching COPR to see if there is a build. If not, creating your own. I know these answers probably aren't what you wanted. They aren't the answers many of us wanted. But currently, they are the answers we have. Troy ___ 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
[EPEL-devel] Re: Recent epel 8 branchs - no tag of package in epel
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 15:08:32 +0100 Steve Traylen wrote: > Last couple of days the epel8 branch requests have been processed > okay. Thanks > > However when you then try and build something it results in > > BuildError: package X not in list for tag epel8-playground-pending > > > Example: > > > https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/19622 > https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/19623 > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=38994106 > > has occurred for multiple recently branched packages. I think earlier > in the week all was good. https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8383 https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9017 Wasn't sure where to report it... Paul. ___ 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
[EPEL-devel] Recent epel 8 branchs - no tag of package in epel
Hi, Last couple of days the epel8 branch requests have been processed okay. Thanks However when you then try and build something it results in BuildError: package X not in list for tag epel8-playground-pending Example: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/19622 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/19623 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=38994106 has occurred for multiple recently branched packages. I think earlier in the week all was good. Steve. ___ 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
[EPEL-devel] Re: hitch is broken in epel7, fix in fedora may or may not break production systems (bz #1731420)
Am 13.11.19 um 20:44 schrieb Stephen John Smoogen: On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 17:06, Ingvar Hagelund wrote: Hello hitch is a TLS terminating network proxy, made to be lean and mean and do nothing else than terminating TLS. It fits hand-in-glove with varnish cache. I maintain hitch in Fedora and EPEL. There is a bug in the current epel7 config that is fixed in the latest rawhide update. In short, the bug is that with the default config, hitch forks a daemon, while the systemd hitch service says Type=simple. See Bugzilla bug #1731420. The fedora update fixes the problem by changing the systemd service to Type=forking. There were two ways to get around the bug: - Set daemon=off in hitch.conf. That file is marked with noreplace, so the update will not overwrite this fix. As this does not match the updated Type=forking in hitch.service, hitch will not start after the update. - Set Type=forking in hitch.service. This is the same fix as in the update, so this should be safe. Also, the Fedora update adds a systemd limits.conf including LimitNOFILE=10240 that is important, as the default value (1024) would trig network problems on a medium busy site (true story). Is it safe to push this update to epel7? This was discussed at today's EPEL meeting and approved. Please push this to epel-testing and let users know in any tickets that it can be used there. After that, push to stable after regular feedback time. I'd really appreciate if it could also be branched into EPEL8? -- Thanks Leon PS: Could a list admin help me, please. I subscribed with a @gmail.com address some weeks ago. google's SMTP rewrites it to @googlemail.com when trying to send a mail to the list (it fails to be accepted by mailman of course). I can not unsubscribe leonfaus...@gmail.com now. The @googlemail.com variant is subscribed now (to be able to post to the list). Rephrased: Could a admin unsubscribe leonfaus...@gmail.com please? Thanks and sorry for the noise. ___ 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
