On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 1:20 AM Petr Pisar <ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
I second what Petr said.
Do the check to see if it's in 'Fedora EPEL' and proceed appropriately.
I think it would also be good to change the wording a bit depending on if it's already in EPEL or not.
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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
