I've been checking the packages that won't install on EPEL [1] and found out that drbd-pacemaker cant get installed because of a missing dependency (pacemaker). While researching why, I saw that pacemaker exists on EPEL7 because it's provided by the HighAvailability repo, but by policy [2] that repo is not a base for EPEL8 nor EPEL9. When I asked on how to handle this cases on the steering meeting, some proposed ideas were: * Rebuild the dependencies as -epel * Retire the packages * Bringing back HA & RS repo The only other package that i've found also has this problem is resalloc-aws that depends on awscli. Is there a policy on this cases? Are EPEL packages allowed to require packages outside of the policy approved? I would like more feedback on how to proceed so we can file bugs for this packages correctly. Package: drbd-pacemaker-9.20.2-1.el9 Error: Problem: conflicting requests - nothing provides pacemaker needed by drbd-pacemaker-9.20.2-1.el9.x86_64 Package: resalloc-aws-1.1-1.el9 Error: Problem: conflicting requests - nothing provides awscli needed by resalloc-aws-1.1-1.el9.noarch Package: drbd-pacemaker-9.17.0-1.el8 Error: Problem: conflicting requests - nothing provides pacemaker needed by drbd-pacemaker-9.17.0-1.el8.x86_64 [1] https://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/epel/willit/epel8/status-wont-install.html [2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy/#_policy _______________________________________________ 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
