It recently came to my attention that the klee package in EPEL 9 needed to be rebuilt against the LLVM 15 library that shipped in RHEL 9.2. I filed a bug for this [0], and then noticed it was assigned to "Orphan Owner". It looks like the maintainer retired it from Fedora [1][2] due the upstream not being compatible with LLVM 15 [3]. I am not the maintainer of this package, but I intend to retire this package from EPEL 9 to avoid having a package with installation issue lingering around. The EPEL retirement policy [4] doesn't cover this exact scenario, so I plan to bring it up for discussion at the next EPEL Steering Committee meeting. We could delay the retirement for one week (the policy for security-related retirements) or two weeks (the policy for lack-of-time retirements), but my preference would be to retire it ASAP.
[0] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241277 [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/klee/c/35fdedce2021112b996a9d38bf3e93cf5c... [2] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/... [3] https://github.com/klee/klee/pull/1648 [4] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-retirement/
On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 8:37 PM Carl George carl@redhat.com wrote:
It recently came to my attention that the klee package in EPEL 9 needed to be rebuilt against the LLVM 15 library that shipped in RHEL 9.2. I filed a bug for this [0], and then noticed it was assigned to "Orphan Owner". It looks like the maintainer retired it from Fedora [1][2] due the upstream not being compatible with LLVM 15 [3]. I am not the maintainer of this package, but I intend to retire this package from EPEL 9 to avoid having a package with installation issue lingering around. The EPEL retirement policy [4] doesn't cover this exact scenario, so I plan to bring it up for discussion at the next EPEL Steering Committee meeting. We could delay the retirement for one week (the policy for security-related retirements) or two weeks (the policy for lack-of-time retirements), but my preference would be to retire it ASAP.
[0] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241277 [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/klee/c/35fdedce2021112b996a9d38bf3e93cf5c... [2] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/... [3] https://github.com/klee/klee/pull/1648 [4] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-retirement/
Since it hasn't been able to be installed since RHEL 9.2 came out, I'm not opposed to doing it ASAP. Especially since they not only orphaned it, but they retired it back in January. And nobody came forward to "unorphan" it back then.
But, since it's not installable, so nobody is going to accidentally install it, there is no rush either. Either way is fine by me.
Troy
On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 9:20 AM Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 8:37 PM Carl George carl@redhat.com wrote:
It recently came to my attention that the klee package in EPEL 9 needed to be rebuilt against the LLVM 15 library that shipped in RHEL 9.2. I filed a bug for this [0], and then noticed it was assigned to "Orphan Owner". It looks like the maintainer retired it from Fedora [1][2] due the upstream not being compatible with LLVM 15 [3]. I am not the maintainer of this package, but I intend to retire this package from EPEL 9 to avoid having a package with installation issue lingering around. The EPEL retirement policy [4] doesn't cover this exact scenario, so I plan to bring it up for discussion at the next EPEL Steering Committee meeting. We could delay the retirement for one week (the policy for security-related retirements) or two weeks (the policy for lack-of-time retirements), but my preference would be to retire it ASAP.
[0] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241277 [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/klee/c/35fdedce2021112b996a9d38bf3e93cf5c... [2] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/... [3] https://github.com/klee/klee/pull/1648 [4] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-retirement/
Since it hasn't been able to be installed since RHEL 9.2 came out, I'm not opposed to doing it ASAP. Especially since they not only orphaned it, but they retired it back in January. And nobody came forward to "unorphan" it back then.
But, since it's not installable, so nobody is going to accidentally install it, there is no rush either. Either way is fine by me.
Meh, yoink it now.
On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 10:37:28PM -0500, Carl George wrote:
It recently came to my attention that the klee package in EPEL 9 needed to be rebuilt against the LLVM 15 library that shipped in RHEL 9.2. I filed a bug for this [0], and then noticed it was assigned to "Orphan Owner". It looks like the maintainer retired it from Fedora [1][2] due the upstream not being compatible with LLVM 15 [3]. I am not the maintainer of this package, but I intend to retire this package from EPEL 9 to avoid having a package with installation issue lingering around. The EPEL retirement policy [4] doesn't cover this exact scenario, so I plan to bring it up for discussion at the next EPEL Steering Committee meeting. We could delay the retirement for one week (the policy for security-related retirements) or two weeks (the policy for lack-of-time retirements), but my preference would be to retire it ASAP.
Retiring seems reasonable here.
kevin
Closing the loop here, I've retired klee in EPEL 9.
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-announce@lists.fedoraproj...
On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 12:01 PM Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 10:37:28PM -0500, Carl George wrote:
It recently came to my attention that the klee package in EPEL 9 needed to be rebuilt against the LLVM 15 library that shipped in RHEL 9.2. I filed a bug for this [0], and then noticed it was assigned to "Orphan Owner". It looks like the maintainer retired it from Fedora [1][2] due the upstream not being compatible with LLVM 15 [3]. I am not the maintainer of this package, but I intend to retire this package from EPEL 9 to avoid having a package with installation issue lingering around. The EPEL retirement policy [4] doesn't cover this exact scenario, so I plan to bring it up for discussion at the next EPEL Steering Committee meeting. We could delay the retirement for one week (the policy for security-related retirements) or two weeks (the policy for lack-of-time retirements), but my preference would be to retire it ASAP.
Retiring seems reasonable here.
kevin _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject... Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Carl George -
Kevin Fenzi -
Neal Gompa -
Troy Dawson