Hello,
I've opened the following two pull requests to introduce %py3_check_import to EPEL8 and EPEL7:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/31 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/32
So far, there has been no response. Is there anybody willing to merge them? They are manually tested, as indicated in the comments.
When we introduce new macros to Fedora, I strive to backport them to EPELs if possible, so package maintainers don't need to think "may I use this?" if they desire EPEL compatibility. However, I don't want to merge my own pull requests to epel-rpm-macros (unless they are urgent bug fixes).
A meta question: Should the epel-sig group co-maintain the package?
On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 01:55:52AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Hello,
I've opened the following two pull requests to introduce %py3_check_import to EPEL8 and EPEL7:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/31 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/32
So far, there has been no response. Is there anybody willing to merge them? They are manually tested, as indicated in the comments.
When we introduce new macros to Fedora, I strive to backport them to EPELs if possible, so package maintainers don't need to think "may I use this?" if they desire EPEL compatibility. However, I don't want to merge my own pull requests to epel-rpm-macros (unless they are urgent bug fixes).
I can merge them... I just didn't notice them somehow. I guess because they were while I was on PTO and I missed them when catching up.
Usually a ping in PR would let me know about them...
A meta question: Should the epel-sig group co-maintain the package?
They could if desired.
kevin
On 03. 08. 21 2:10, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 01:55:52AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Hello,
I've opened the following two pull requests to introduce %py3_check_import to EPEL8 and EPEL7:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/31 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/32
So far, there has been no response. Is there anybody willing to merge them? They are manually tested, as indicated in the comments.
When we introduce new macros to Fedora, I strive to backport them to EPELs if possible, so package maintainers don't need to think "may I use this?" if they desire EPEL compatibility. However, I don't want to merge my own pull requests to epel-rpm-macros (unless they are urgent bug fixes).
I can merge them...
Thank you! Both updates now exist:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-dfd462a782 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-e3b1cc2b6e
A meta question: Should the epel-sig group co-maintain the package?
They could if desired.
I think it is desired. Why wouldn't it be?
On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 02:57:50AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 03. 08. 21 2:10, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 01:55:52AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Hello,
I've opened the following two pull requests to introduce %py3_check_import to EPEL8 and EPEL7:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/31 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/32
So far, there has been no response. Is there anybody willing to merge them? They are manually tested, as indicated in the comments.
When we introduce new macros to Fedora, I strive to backport them to EPELs if possible, so package maintainers don't need to think "may I use this?" if they desire EPEL compatibility. However, I don't want to merge my own pull requests to epel-rpm-macros (unless they are urgent bug fixes).
I can merge them...
Thank you! Both updates now exist:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-dfd462a782 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-e3b1cc2b6e
I deliberately didn't do the epel8 build because I wanted to wait for: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/33 to get rebased, but ok. ;)
A meta question: Should the epel-sig group co-maintain the package?
They could if desired.
I think it is desired. Why wouldn't it be?
Beats me. I don't want to speak for the epel-sig without the folks in it speaking up first. :)
kevin
On 03. 08. 21 3:49, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Thank you! Both updates now exist:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-dfd462a782 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-e3b1cc2b6e
I deliberately didn't do the epel8 build because I wanted to wait for: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/33 to get rebased, but ok.;)
Ah. Sorry about that. It always confuses me when a PR is merged, who is supposed to do the build and update. I've triggered both builds, but the epel7 one failed (as it was already running by you).
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Kevin Fenzi -
Miro Hrončok