On 2019-11-14 16:13, Denis Arnaud wrote:
Thanks Petr for your answer!
Let's give the COPR short-term solution a try, then :)
What is frustrating is that we cannot get our hands on the package
source for Protobuf for RHEL/CentOS, and we cannot therefore know who
maintains it at RedHat.
The maintainer is (usually, effectively) also the Bugzilla assignee.
For Boost for instance, which is also a RedHat
core package, I know the RedHat maintainer (Jon Wakely) and can
co-maintain Boost with him and have an influence on (non-EPEL)
In my personal opinion, that's the way it should be; it benefits both
Red Hat and the community.
At least, we get visibility on when, why and how
Boost is rebuilt on RHEL/CentOS. It would be nice to achieve the same
with Protobuf. But I have no clue on how to identify who at RedHat is
(are) the main maintainer(s) of Protobuf. I am sure they would be
interested if I/we can build protobuf with Python bindings for
RHEL/CentOS 8 (at least on EPEL).
And it seems strange to me that RHEL/CentOS misses Python bindings for
Protobuf (which is the cornerstone to many frameworks (e.g., gRPC)). I
wonder how many applications work at all. Or maybe those Python bindings
are build-time only in the new modularization framework?
It would help to have a way, for Fedora/EPEL volunteers, to be able to
reach out to RedHat core package maintainers, at least for
cross-awareness, knowledge sharing and potential collaboration.
14 Nov. 2019 15:27, Petr Viktorin <pviktori(a)redhat.com
On 2019-11-11 11:45, Denis Arnaud wrote:
> the Python (3) bindings are missing on RHEL/CentOS/EPEL 8 for
> protobuf package (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/protobuf
> A bug request has been created on Bugzilla
), but as
> has been given, I was wondering whether someone could shed
some light on
> the context.
> Since protobuf is a RedHat core package (maintained by RedHat
> therefore not managed by Fedora/EPEL), it appears as a kind
of black box
> from Fedora perspective. On Fedora (Rawhide, 31), the Python (3)
> bindings are generated/packaged (see for instance
> some reason, those Python bindings are not generated by
> RHEL/CentOS 8.
> 1. Would anyone from RedHat be able to provide some heads up
> those Python 3 bindings are missing for Protobuf, and/or an
> timeline for when it would be generated?
We just talked about this among Red Hat python-maint. (Sorry for
delay!) We don't have influence over this package; unfortunately we
can't help directly.
> 2. Would RedHat need help with packaging protobuf on
At this level "Red Hat" is not a single entity. You're probably
reaching the right people on this list.
If the packager isn't active in Fedora or on Bugzilla, then
unfortunately, the way to get them to respond is to file a customer
Another way to approach this is change EPEL rules somehow to
possible to build subpackages like this. From what I understand,
being discussed, but it'll take time to get sorted out.
> 3. Would you recommend another way for Fedora packagers/users
> their hands on the python3-protobuf/protobuf-python3 package?
> instance, through COPR, or some module we may have missed.
Building a replacement protobuf package in COPR is the best
Sorry I couldn't be more helpful.