On Thu, 3 Dec 2020, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
>> Apart from the usual package-not-available story (which I want to fix
>> as part of my work bringing up the EPEL Packagers SIG), my current
>> snag is that python-tox-current-env uses %generate_buildrequires which
>> does not work on CentOS 8:
>> CentOS 8 is still on RPM 4.14:
>> <mock-chroot> sh-4.4# rpm -q rpm
>> I'll put up a patch to hardcode dependencies for non-Fedora releases,
>> though that sorts of defeat the purpose of dynamic build
>> Then again, this is only needed for EPEL8, since EPEL9 will have a
>> new enough RPM.
> Given that %generate_buildrequires is the selling point of pyproject-
> rpm-macros, I'm guessing a better way forward for EPEL8 would be to not
> require it on EPEL8 since there's no way it would work, since RH won't
> update RPM?
Is %generate_buildrequires suppose to work for packages
which do not used python ?
From the name I would expect it to, but reading that doc makes me
think %generate_buildrequires *is* python specific.
If so, the name is misleading.
(I am also confused/suspicious of the point of a macro to automate
build requires, except as a step on a path to somewhere else.
If build requirements need to be stated explicitly,
then automating their statement is a good way of hiding an issue
that needs to be reviewed whenever changes are made.
Andrew C. Aitchison Kendal, UK
Looks like RHEL 8.2 will have python 3.8 in addition to python 3.6. From
the 8.2 beta:
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 for x86_64 - AppStream Beta (RPMs)
Name Stream Profiles Summary
python27 2.7 [d][e] common [d] Python programming
language, version 2.7
python36 3.6 [d][e] build, common [d] Python programming
language, version 3.6
python38 3.8 [d][e] build, common [d] Python programming
language, version 3.8
Currently, %python_pkgversion is set to 3 in
/usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.python-srpm from python-srpm-macros.
python3-devel is still provided only by python36-devel, so presumably all
EPEL8 python packages will continue to be built against python 3.6. But I
imagine that people will soon be asking for python 3.8 versions of EPEL
packages. How can we provide those? Does this have to be done in some
modular fashion - which seems to come back to the discussion of whether or not
every package has to become its own module or whether to group them together
somehow. Or since both python modules are "default" modules and we can
install both python36-devel and python38-devel at the same time, perhaps we
can define the python3_other* macros again for python38 and just go that way?
Manager of NWRA Technical Systems 720-772-5637
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 https://www.nwra.com/
I have a COPR containing xfce 4.16 packages for EPEL-8 packages . I
would like to get some testing done using this COPR before getting into
Please email if and when you notice problems and I will try to fix it as
soon as possible.
As a reminder - xfce 4.16 will be available in F34.
GPG Key: E5C8BC67
Hi EPEL developers.
I am using CentOS 8 and am using various packages in the EPEL
repository. I am interested in seeing gcc-gnat added to EPEL.
I cannot find a current Fedora maintainer listed for this package, but
it is available in Fedora (at least in version 32). Are there any
maintainers who are interested in creating an EPEL version of this package?
A large part of my day job is working on CentOS Stream. Naturally I would
like it to be successful and have wide adoption. I know that EPEL will play
a big role in this success. EPEL is extremely popular. Many users consider
RHEL and CentOS unusable without it.
The problem we are facing is that EPEL 8 cannot be 100% compatible with
RHEL/CentOS 8 and CentOS 8 Stream at the same time. It is not uncommon for
RHEL to ship library soname changes in minor releases. In the RHEL 8 cycle,
those changes are showing up in CentOS 8 Stream first. EPEL 8 builds
against the latest RHEL 8 release. This can result in EPEL 8 packages that
are uninstallable on CentOS 8 Stream due to the library differences. One
prominent example we have already seen is llvm-libs, which has increased its
library soname in every RHEL 8 minor release so far. Another increase is
planned for RHEL 8.3, which has already been released in CentOS 8 Stream.
There are likely other incompatibilities that haven't been noticed yet. I
expect this problem to grow worse as RHEL development continues and more
packages are added to EPEL 8. This situation is hurting the adoption of
To solve this problem, I am proposing that we create a new repository called
EPEL 8 Next.
- built against CentOS 8 Stream
- opt-in for packagers (must request epel8-next dist-git branch)
- opt-in for users (part of epel-release but disabled by default)
- used *with* epel8, not *instead of*
This will provide EPEL packagers a place where they can update their
packages when necessary to be compatible with CentOS 8 Stream. These
packages would also be useful for RHEL 8 users during the gap between a RHEL
minor release and the equivalent CentOS 8 Linux rebuild. In theory this
repository should also be directly consumable by RHEL 8 Beta releases.
Similar to RHEL itself, breaking changes could be permitted in epel8-next in
preparation for delivering them to epel8 around the time of the next RHEL
This proposal may sound similar to epel8-playground. However, that was
still built against RHEL 8, so it didn't solve the compatibility issue with
CentOS 8 Stream. This proposal does draw on lessons learned from the
- no automatic builds via packages.cfg
- opt-in rather than opt-out
- layering on top of epel8, rather than duplicating content
I first suggested this idea at the last EPEL Steering Committee meeting, and
we plan to discuss it again during the next one. Please share your thoughts
on this proposal.
I sent an email to what I hope is email address for Fedora openldap
maintainers for epel8 branch but then I realized that might not be
possible. It appears like RHEL8 ships the openldap and openldap-clients
packages buts purposely leaves out openldap-servers. So given that some
RPMs exist and some are missing, how would that be handled to do an EPEL8
build or would that simply not be possible? I took the Fedora 35 SRPM and
rebuilt for EPEL8 using mock with no issues but the overlap of openldap and
openldap-clients packages I imagine is a problem.