Request for fence-agents-pve package

[Alex Talaran]

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.in#L...

[3]
https://github.com/ClusterLabs/fence-agents/issues/456

[Carl George]

On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 8:31 AM Alex Talaran  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.in#L...
>
> [3]
> https://github.com/ClusterLabs/fence-agents/issues/456
> _______________________________________________
> epel-devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> 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/[e-mail]...
> 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.

[Alex Talaran]

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  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.in#L...
> >
> > [3]
> > https://github.com/ClusterLabs/fence-agents/issues/456
> > _______________________________________________
> > epel-devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > 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/[e-mail]...
> > 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.

[Alex Talaran]

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  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.in#L...
> >
> > [3]
> > https://github.com/ClusterLabs/fence-agents/issues/456
> > _______________________________________________
> > epel-devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > 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/[e-mail]...
> > 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.

[Carl George]

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  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  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.in#L...
> > >
> > > [3]
> > > https://github.com/ClusterLabs/fence-agents/issues/456
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > epel-devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > > 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/[e-mail]...
> > > 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 -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> 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/[e-mail]...
> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Alex Talaran]

i can give it a shot but not sure i am the best for long term 
maintainer. happy to test and share diffs if i get to them too. i cant 
test more than the pve package for what its worth.

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  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  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.in#L...
> > > >
> > > > [3]
> > > > https://github.com/ClusterLabs/fence-agents/issues/456
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > epel-devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > > > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > > > 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/[e-mail]...
> > > > 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 -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > 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/[e-mail]...
> > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Alex Talaran]

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  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  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.in#L...
> > > >
> > > > [3]
> > > > https://github.com/ClusterLabs/fence-agents/issues/456
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > epel-devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > > > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > > > 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/[e-mail]...
> > > > 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 -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > 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/[e-mail]...
> > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure