On 2019-11-11 11:45, Denis Arnaud wrote:
the Python (3) bindings are missing on RHEL/CentOS/EPEL 8 for the
protobuf package (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/protobuf
A bug request has been created on Bugzilla
), but as no status
has been given, I was wondering whether someone could shed some light on
Since protobuf is a RedHat core package (maintained by RedHat and
therefore not managed by Fedora/EPEL), it appears as a kind of black box
from Fedora perspective. On Fedora (Rawhide, 31), the Python (3)
bindings are generated/packaged (see for instance
), but for
some reason, those Python bindings are not generated by RedHat for
1. Would anyone from RedHat be able to provide some heads up on why
those Python 3 bindings are missing for Protobuf, and/or an approximate
timeline for when it would be generated?
We just talked about this among Red Hat python-maint. (Sorry for the
delay!) We don't have influence over this package; unfortunately we
can't help directly.
2. Would RedHat need help with packaging protobuf on RHEL/CentOS/EPEL
At this level "Red Hat" is not a single entity. You're probably not
reaching the right people on this list.
If the packager isn't active in Fedora or on Bugzilla, then
unfortunately, the way to get them to respond is to file a customer
Another way to approach this is change EPEL rules somehow to make it
possible to build subpackages like this. From what I understand, it's
being discussed, but it'll take time to get sorted out.
3. Would you recommend another way for Fedora packagers/users to get
their hands on the python3-protobuf/protobuf-python3 package? For
instance, through COPR, or some module we may have missed.
Building a replacement protobuf package in COPR is the best short-term
Sorry I couldn't be more helpful.