Is it worthwhile to get fedora-review into EPEL8?

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

[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

[Miro Hrončok]

On 12/3/20 9:41 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
>  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 
Yes, pyproject-rpm-macros don't support EPEL < 9.

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