Is it worthwhile to get fedora-review into EPEL8?
by Michel Alexandre Salim
I split my time between the latest Fedora and the latest CentOS these
days, and it would make dogfooding packaging changes for CentOS/EPEL
much easier if all the packager utilities are available. Right now,
fedpkg is, but fedora-review is not.
Tracking my effort here: https://pagure.io/epel/issue/108
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:
ERROR: Source RPM is not installable:
error: Missing rpmlib features for python-tox-current-env-0.0.5-
1.el8.noarch:
error: rpmlib(DynamicBuildRequires) <= 4.15.0-1
CentOS 8 is still on RPM 4.14:
<mock-chroot> sh-4.4# rpm -q rpm
rpm-4.14.2-37.el8.x86_64
I'll put up a patch to hardcode dependencies for non-Fedora releases,
though that sorts of defeat the purpose of dynamic build requirements.
Then again, this is only needed for EPEL8, since EPEL9 will have a new
enough RPM.
Thanks,
--
Michel Alexandre Salim
profile: https://keyoxide.org/michel@michel-slm.name
chat via email: https://delta.chat/
GPG key: 5DCE 2E7E 9C3B 1CFF D335 C1D7 8B22 9D2F 7CCC 04F2
3 years, 4 months
- 2
- 2
Problems with %py_provides macro
by Mattia Verga
I've just received [1] this bug report about wrong generated Provides for py3dist() and py3.9dist() for package python-pytest-filter-subpackage.
It seems that the %py_provides macro doesn't generate the correct Provides. I think I have another case with python-graphql-server [2].
Do you think this is really a bug in the %py_provides macro? What package should I fill a ticket against?
Mattia
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1902785
[2] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=24056645
3 years, 4 months
- 2
- 2