On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 6:43 AM Troy Dawson <tdawson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 13, 2024 at 7:20 PM Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:This email is the first step in a proposed update of the re2 package
from version 20220601 to 20240702 in EPEL10[1]. This would be an
ABI-incompatible update[2] that would bump the SONAME version from 9 to 11.
In addition to two years of assorted bugfixes, which are mostly only
documented in the commit messages[3], this update would allow us to ship
the maintained, official Python bindings[4] as a python3-google-re2
subpackage.
While there are a quite a few packages that depend on re2 in Fedora,
it’s still a leaf package in EPEL10. I’m hoping that this fact, along
with the benefits of shipping a current version with Python bindings and
the fact that EPEL10 has not yet been officially launched for end-users,
will help make this an uncontroversial proposal.
[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/re2/pull-request/9
[2]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-incompatible-upgrades/#process_for_incompatible_upgrades
[3] https://github.com/google/re2/commits/2024-07-02
[4] https://pypi.org/project/google-re2/Thank you for going through the official EPEL process.I am in favor of this, and in favor of it happening sooner rather than later.re2 is a build dependency of grpc, and grpc is a build dependency of qt6-qtwebengine.I was in a rush, and didn't ask ya'll if you were doing an update soon, or why. I just saw that it was on my list of dependencies needed, and I had commit permissions.Looks like you updated it the week after I branched and built it for epel10.grpc and qt6-qtwebengine haven't been built yet. I'm not sure how much longer it will take to get them built. If we could get this done before then, I'd be in favor.TroyNote: My saying that doesn't give the EPEL Steering Committees approval. I'm just giving my personal opinion, and reasons for it.
This was discussed in today's EPEL Steering Committee meeting.
It was agreed by the committee that this issue is approved and can be fast-tracked.
What that means is this, in terms of the policy.[1]
You had already done steps 1-3 of the policy.
The time limit of step 4 was waived. Everyone agreed that there had already been enough discussion, in this email, and on matrix.
Step 5 passed. Everyone agreed that the incompatible upgrade can be built.
Step 7 does not apply to epel10, due to the way builds are processed.
Since step 7 is not applied, step 6 and 8 are condensed, and only one email needs to be sent.
Happy Building!!
-- _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
