[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL8 and EPEL7: Introduce %py3_check_import - review needed
On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 02:57:50AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 03. 08. 21 2:10, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 01:55:52AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > I've opened the following two pull requests to introduce %py3_check_import > > > to EPEL8 and EPEL7: > > > > > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/31 > > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/32 > > > > > > So far, there has been no response. Is there anybody willing to merge > > > them? > > > They are manually tested, as indicated in the comments. > > > > > > When we introduce new macros to Fedora, I strive to backport them to EPELs > > > if possible, so package maintainers don't need to think "may I use this?" > > > if > > > they desire EPEL compatibility. However, I don't want to merge my own pull > > > requests to epel-rpm-macros (unless they are urgent bug fixes). > > > > I can merge them... > > Thank you! Both updates now exist: > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-dfd462a782 > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-e3b1cc2b6e I deliberately didn't do the epel8 build because I wanted to wait for: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/33 to get rebased, but ok. ;) > > > A meta question: Should the epel-sig group co-maintain the package? > > > > They could if desired. > > I think it is desired. Why wouldn't it be? Beats me. I don't want to speak for the epel-sig without the folks in it speaking up first. :) kevin 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
[EPEL-devel] Rebasing nlohmann_json to 3.6.1 in EPEL7
Hi all, I am rebasing nlohmann_json from 3.3.1 to 3.6.1 in epel7 to agree with the version in epel8. This change is necessary for supporting a new epel7 package jsonnet. Bodhi update: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-b95dc99fad Assuming no issues or objections I will push it in to the stable when possible. Thanks, Kyle ___ 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
[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL8 and EPEL7: Introduce %py3_check_import - review needed
On 03. 08. 21 2:10, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 01:55:52AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: Hello, I've opened the following two pull requests to introduce %py3_check_import to EPEL8 and EPEL7: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/31 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/32 So far, there has been no response. Is there anybody willing to merge them? They are manually tested, as indicated in the comments. When we introduce new macros to Fedora, I strive to backport them to EPELs if possible, so package maintainers don't need to think "may I use this?" if they desire EPEL compatibility. However, I don't want to merge my own pull requests to epel-rpm-macros (unless they are urgent bug fixes). I can merge them... Thank you! Both updates now exist: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-dfd462a782 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-e3b1cc2b6e A meta question: Should the epel-sig group co-maintain the package? They could if desired. I think it is desired. Why wouldn't it be? -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ 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
[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL8 and EPEL7: Introduce %py3_check_import - review needed
On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 01:55:52AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > Hello, > > I've opened the following two pull requests to introduce %py3_check_import > to EPEL8 and EPEL7: > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/31 > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/32 > > So far, there has been no response. Is there anybody willing to merge them? > They are manually tested, as indicated in the comments. > > When we introduce new macros to Fedora, I strive to backport them to EPELs > if possible, so package maintainers don't need to think "may I use this?" if > they desire EPEL compatibility. However, I don't want to merge my own pull > requests to epel-rpm-macros (unless they are urgent bug fixes). I can merge them... I just didn't notice them somehow. I guess because they were while I was on PTO and I missed them when catching up. Usually a ping in PR would let me know about them... > A meta question: Should the epel-sig group co-maintain the package? They could if desired. kevin 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
[EPEL-devel] EPEL8 and EPEL7: Introduce %py3_check_import - review needed
Hello, I've opened the following two pull requests to introduce %py3_check_import to EPEL8 and EPEL7: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/31 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/32 So far, there has been no response. Is there anybody willing to merge them? They are manually tested, as indicated in the comments. When we introduce new macros to Fedora, I strive to backport them to EPELs if possible, so package maintainers don't need to think "may I use this?" if they desire EPEL compatibility. However, I don't want to merge my own pull requests to epel-rpm-macros (unless they are urgent bug fixes). A meta question: Should the epel-sig group co-maintain the package? -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ 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
