EPEL8 and EPEL7: Introduce %py3_check_import - review needed

[Miro Hrončok]

Hello,

I've opened the following two pull requests to introduce %py3_check_import to 
EPEL8 and EPEL7:

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/31
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/32

So far, there has been no response. Is there anybody willing to merge them? 
They are manually tested, as indicated in the comments.

When we introduce new macros to Fedora, I strive to backport them to EPELs if 
possible, so package maintainers don't need to think "may I use this?" if
they 
desire EPEL compatibility. However, I don't want to merge my own pull requests 
to epel-rpm-macros (unless they are urgent bug fixes).

A meta question: Should the epel-sig group co-maintain the package?

-- 
Miro Hrončok
-- 
Phone: [phone]
IRC: mhroncok

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 01:55:52AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>  Hello,
>  
>  I've opened the following two pull requests to introduce %py3_check_import
>  to EPEL8 and EPEL7:
>  
>  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/31
>  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/32
>  
>  So far, there has been no response. Is there anybody willing to merge them?
>  They are manually tested, as indicated in the comments.
>  
>  When we introduce new macros to Fedora, I strive to backport them to EPELs
>  if possible, so package maintainers don't need to think "may I use this?"
> if
>  they desire EPEL compatibility. However, I don't want to merge my own pull
>  requests to epel-rpm-macros (unless they are urgent bug fixes). 
I can merge them... I just didn't notice them somehow. I guess because
they were while I was on PTO and I missed them when catching up. 

Usually a ping in PR would let me know about them... 

>  A meta question: Should the epel-sig group co-maintain the package?
They could if desired. 

kevin

[Miro Hrončok]

On 03. 08. 21 2:10, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>  On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 01:55:52AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I've opened the following two pull requests to introduce %py3_check_import
> > to EPEL8 and EPEL7:
> >
> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/31
> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/32
> >
> > So far, there has been no response. Is there anybody willing to merge them?
> > They are manually tested, as indicated in the comments.
> >
> > When we introduce new macros to Fedora, I strive to backport them to EPELs
> > if possible, so package maintainers don't need to think "may I use
> this?" if
> > they desire EPEL compatibility. However, I don't want to merge my own pull
> > requests to epel-rpm-macros (unless they are urgent bug fixes).
>  
>  I can merge them... 
Thank you! Both updates now exist:

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-dfd462a782
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-e3b1cc2b6e

> > A meta question: Should the epel-sig group co-maintain the
> package?
>  
>  They could if desired. 
I think it is desired. Why wouldn't it be?

-- 
Miro Hrončok
-- 
Phone: [phone]
IRC: mhroncok

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 02:57:50AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>  On 03. 08. 21 2:10, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>  > On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 01:55:52AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>  > > Hello,
>  > > 
>  > > I've opened the following two pull requests to introduce %py3_check_import
>  > > to EPEL8 and EPEL7:
>  > > 
>  > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/31
>  > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/32
>  > > 
>  > > So far, there has been no response. Is there anybody willing to merge them?
>  > > They are manually tested, as indicated in the comments.
>  > > 
>  > > When we introduce new macros to Fedora, I strive to backport them to EPELs
>  > > if possible, so package maintainers don't need to think "may I use
> this?" if
>  > > they desire EPEL compatibility. However, I don't want to merge my own pull
>  > > requests to epel-rpm-macros (unless they are urgent bug fixes).
>  > 
>  > I can merge them...
>  
>  Thank you! Both updates now exist:
>  
>  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-dfd462a782
>  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-e3b1cc2b6e 
I deliberately didn't do the epel8 build because I wanted to wait for:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/33
to get rebased, but ok. ;) 

>  > > A meta question: Should the epel-sig group co-maintain the
> package?
>  > 
>  > They could if desired.
>  
>  I think it is desired. Why wouldn't it be? 
Beats me. I don't want to speak for the epel-sig without the folks in it
speaking up first. :) 

kevin

[Miro Hrončok]

On 03. 08. 21 3:49, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > Thank you! Both updates now exist:
> >
> > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-dfd462a782
> > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-e3b1cc2b6e
>  I deliberately didn't do the epel8 build because I wanted to wait for:
>  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/33
>  to get rebased, but ok.;)   
Ah. Sorry about that. It always confuses me when a PR is merged, who is 
supposed to do the build and update. I've triggered both builds, but the epel7 
one failed (as it was already running by you).

-- 
Miro Hrončok
-- 
Phone: [phone]
IRC: mhroncok