[Bug 1828059] New: Review Request: boost1.73 - The free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828059

Bug ID: 1828059
           Summary: Review Request: boost1.73 - The free peer-reviewed
                    portable C++ source libraries
           Product: Fedora EPEL
           Version: epel8
            Status: NEW
         Component: Package Review
          Assignee: [e-mail]
          Reporter: [e-mail]
        QA Contact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]
  Target Milestone: ---
    Classification: Fedora

Spec URL:
https://github.com/fedorapackaging/fedorareviews/blob/a4722663644e33ac20ecff...
SRPM URL:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/6687/43816687/boost1.73-1.73....

Description:
A few packages require a fairly recent Boost version, which EPEL does not
provide. EPEL 6 and 7 have had Boost-1.48, Boost-1.59 and Boost-1.69 for a
while (as parallel installations), thanks also to Robert Scheck and Haïkel
Guémar. The very same way those versioned Boost packages have been built for
EPEL, it is therefore proposed to build Boost-1.73 for EPEL 7 and 8, as a
parallel installation to the currently officially supported Boost packages
(Boost-1.53 on EPEL 7 and Boost-1.66 on EPEL 8).

To minimize the work (and the support!) to be required, both the pristine
Boost-1.73 package on Fedora 33 and versioned Boost-1.69 on EPEL 7 serve as a
basis, as they cleanly build on at least EPEL 8 (and most probably on EPEL 7).
If relevant in the future, for EPEL 6, work-arounds of Boost148 may have to be
re-injected.

References:
* Review request for Boost-1.69 on EPEL 7:
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1667725
* Review request for Boost-1.59 on EPEL 7:
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391444
* Review request for Boost-1.57 on EPEL 6 and 7:
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210993
* Review request for Boost-1.48 on EPEL 5 and 6:
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921134
* Review request for Boost-1.41 on EPEL 5:
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673839
* Feature request for Boost-1.73 on Fedora:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F33Boost173

--
Note that at the time of writing (26 April 2020), Boost 1.73.0 is still
available as RC 1 only. It should become the official Boost 1.73.0 version very
soon by now.

[Bug 1828059] Review Request: boost1.73 - The free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828059

Jonathan Wakely  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
           Doc Type|---                         |If docs needed, set a value
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+

[Bug 1828059] Review Request: boost1.73 - The free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828059

Petr Pisar  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED

[Bug 1828059] Review Request: boost1.73 - The free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828059

--- Comment #2 from Denis Arnaud  ---
Does anybody knows how EPEL branches can be created for that boost.173 package?
I've tried by creating a ticket with fedpkg
(https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/28809), but with no success
so far...

We have no intention to use the Fedora branches, as this is explicitly an EPEL
package.

[Bug 1828059] Review Request: boost1.73 - The free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828059

Mattia Verga  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|[e-mail] |[e-mail]
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |NEW
              Flags|fedora-review+              |

--- Comment #3 from Mattia Verga  ---
Resetting ticket status, since the review-flag it's too old to allow repository
creation.
This package will need a fresh review.

[Bug 1828059] Review Request: boost1.73 - The free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828059

Petr Menšík  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #4 from Petr Menšík  ---
It would help if correct path were used. 
Spec URL: should lead to raw spec file. SRPM url does no longer exist, please
use different place to store valid srpm. fedorapeople.org would be good
candidate. fedora-review tool cannot process this review.

I am not sure whether is it possible to create repository without rawhide
branch, just epel8 branch. To create repository first review+ flag is needed
and reviewer has to assign bug to himself/herself. I think you need to have
review+ first to be ready to create package. Then default branch might be
solved. It seems at least rawhide branch might be needed. Wouldn't it work the
same way for Fedora too?

[Bug 1828059] Review Request: boost1.73 - The free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828059

Carl George 🤠  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #5 from Carl George 🤠  ---
> I am not sure whether is it possible to create repository without rawhide branch, just epel8 branch.

It's not.  The way it works is once the package is approved the submitter can
request the repo, request the desired epel branches, and then retire the
rawhide branch later after the repo exists.

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-faq/#is_it_possible_to_get_a_...

I would also suggest that this be reworked to be boost1.75 and kept in sync
with the RHEL 9 boost package (which is version 1.75).  That should make it
easier to maintain going forward, especially regarding security backports.

[Bug 1828059] Review Request: boost1.73 - The free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828059

Carl George 🤠  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |CLOSED
         Resolution|---                         |NOTABUG
        Last Closed|                            |2022-07-14 20:03:12

--- Comment #6 from Carl George 🤠  ---
I glanced at Denis's comment [0] in the failed repo request, and it reminded me
that this package doesn't need a review because it fits the second bullet point
listed under review exceptions [1].  Denis, you can run this command to get the
distgit repo created:

fedpkg request-repo --exception <package name>

As a review isn't required, I'm going to close out this bug.

[0] https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/28809#comment-677415
[1]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/#...

[Bug 1828059] Review Request: boost1.73 - The free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828059

--- Comment #7 from Denis Arnaud  ---
Thanks Carl, eventually someone told me how to create a repo for Boos1.xx EPEL
packages!

For reference, Boost1.78 repository has been requested to be created (Boost
1.78 is the version on Rawhide):
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/45783