Hi Denis, On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 3:13 PM Denis Arnaud <denisarnaud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
