was this the right place to open the bug or can it be moved to the right spot please? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2098360 On 2022-06-17 16:28, Carl George wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 8:31 AM Alex Talaran <atalaran(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >> would anyone be willing to package this in epel or help get it in the >> existing package please? >> >> i asked on bugzilla [1] but the current maintainer isnt able to help at >> the moment. from what i can tell it might just need uncommented in the >> spec file [2]. someone else asked about it [1][3] and the ownership is >> being thrown back and forth between epel and rhel. >> >> >> [1] >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029251 >> >> [2] >> https://github.com/ClusterLabs/fence-agents/blob/main/fence-agents.spec.i... >> >> [3] >> https://github.com/ClusterLabs/fence-agents/issues/456 >> _______________________________________________ >> epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave(a)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.fedoraproj... >> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure > > In Fedora fence-agents-pve is a subpackage of fence-agents. > fence-agents is in RHEL, so the Fedora package cannot be branched > as-is for EPEL. Some possible alternatives: > > - Open a CentOS Stream bugzilla and request that fence-agents-pve be > added to the fence-agents spec file. If the maintainer agrees, it > will show up in the next RHEL minor release ("next" being contingent > on timing). This is the ideal solution from a packaging perspective > but has a fair chance of being declined if RHEL doesn't want to > ship/support that subpackage. > - Create a stand-alone fence-agents-pve package, and get it reviewed > as an EPEL-only package. That would be allowed in EPEL because > neither the srpm or rpm name would conflict with RHEL. > - Create a fence-agents-epel package that contains all the subpackages > that are disabled in the RHEL spec file. Similar to the previous > option, this would be EPEL-only and would be allowed because the srpm > and rpm names don't conflict with RHEL. > - Rebuild the Fedora spec file with all subpackages somewhere where > replacing base packages is allowed, such as a copr or a CentOS SIG. >

Correct, a fence-agents-epel package is probably the best choice here. Are you interested in creating and maintaining that? It's described in further detail in the EPEL docs [0], although it's lacking examples. [0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-missing-sub-packages/ On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 9:15 AM Alex Talaran <atalaran(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Carl George

ive been trying to rebuild their rpm using only the missing agents and am having trouble getting the sources at a minimum. would someone be able and interested in helping get these other agents into epel? i am happy to test and will be a constant user, but not sure i am the best for long term maintainer of the package. thanks. On 2022-06-29 15:02, Carl George wrote: > Correct, a fence-agents-epel package is probably the best choice here. > Are you interested in creating and maintaining that? It's described > in further detail in the EPEL docs [0], although it's lacking > examples. > > [0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-missing-sub-packages/ > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 9:15 AM Alex Talaran <atalaran(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >> Carl, >> >> it looks like this will not be included in centos stream per RH. so >> looks like option 2 or 3 would be next right? to help the greater >> community 3 might be better since other agents are missing too. >> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2098360 >> >> On 2022-06-17 16:28, Carl George wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 8:31 AM Alex Talaran <atalaran(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>> would anyone be willing to package this in epel or help get it in the >>>> existing package please? >>>> >>>> i asked on bugzilla [1] but the current maintainer isnt able to help at >>>> the moment. from what i can tell it might just need uncommented in the >>>> spec file [2]. someone else asked about it [1][3] and the ownership is >>>> being thrown back and forth between epel and rhel. >>>> >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029251 >>>> >>>> [2] >>>> https://github.com/ClusterLabs/fence-agents/blob/main/fence-agents.spec.i... >>>> >>>> [3] >>>> https://github.com/ClusterLabs/fence-agents/issues/456 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave(a)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.fedoraproj... >>>> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure >>> >>> In Fedora fence-agents-pve is a subpackage of fence-agents. >>> fence-agents is in RHEL, so the Fedora package cannot be branched >>> as-is for EPEL. Some possible alternatives: >>> >>> - Open a CentOS Stream bugzilla and request that fence-agents-pve be >>> added to the fence-agents spec file. If the maintainer agrees, it >>> will show up in the next RHEL minor release ("next" being contingent >>> on timing). This is the ideal solution from a packaging perspective >>> but has a fair chance of being declined if RHEL doesn't want to >>> ship/support that subpackage. >>> - Create a stand-alone fence-agents-pve package, and get it reviewed >>> as an EPEL-only package. That would be allowed in EPEL because >>> neither the srpm or rpm name would conflict with RHEL. >>> - Create a fence-agents-epel package that contains all the subpackages >>> that are disabled in the RHEL spec file. Similar to the previous >>> option, this would be EPEL-only and would be allowed because the srpm >>> and rpm names don't conflict with RHEL. >>> - Rebuild the Fedora spec file with all subpackages somewhere where >>> replacing base packages is allowed, such as a copr or a CentOS SIG. >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave(a)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.fedoraproj... >> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure > > >