On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 1:20 AM Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com 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