Re: Is it worthwhile to get fedora-review into EPEL8?

[Michel Alexandre Salim]

On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 12:32 -0800, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
>  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.
>   
Given that %generate_buildrequires is the selling point of pyproject-
rpm-macros, I'm guessing a better way forward for EPEL8 would be to not
require it on EPEL8 since there's no way it would work, since RH won't
update RPM?

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros


Thanks,

-- 
Michel Alexandre Salim
profile: https://keyoxide.org/[e-mail]
chat via email: https://delta.chat/
GPG key: 5DCE 2E7E 9C3B 1CFF D335 C1D7 8B22 9D2F 7CCC 04F2