Bug 1763540

Summary:	Please branch and build for cross-gcc EPEL8
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora EPEL	Reporter:	Orion Poplawski <orion>
Component:	cross-gcc	Assignee:	Davide Cavalca <davide>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	epel8	CC:	dan, davide, dhowells, lkundrak
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	cross-gcc-12.1.1-1.el9 cross-gcc-12.1.1-2.el8	Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2022-07-29 01:51:35 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:	1755809, 1763547
Bug Blocks:	1763456, 1914423

Description Orion Poplawski 2019-10-20 22:32:34 UTC

Description of problem:

Please branch and build for EPEL8

Although we are missing deps at the moment:

DEBUG util.py:593:  No matching package to install: 'binutils >= 2.31'
DEBUG util.py:593:  No matching package to install: 'binutils-aarch64-linux-gnu >= 2.31.1-3'
....


Do we really need binutils >= 2.31?  RHEL8.0 hase 2.30-49.el8.

Comment 1 Orion Poplawski 2020-08-21 20:13:26 UTC

Ping?

Comment 2 Davide Cavalca 2022-07-08 17:20:26 UTC

Will you be able to branch and build cross-gcc in epel8 and epel9? The EPEL Packagers SIG would be happy to be a co-maintainer if you do not wish to build it on epel8 and epel9.

Comment 3 Dan Horák 2022-07-13 08:44:05 UTC

I (as an "admin") have no objection for EPEL Packagers SIG becoming a co-maintainer of the epel{8,9} branched.

Comment 4 Dan Horák 2022-07-13 09:27:39 UTC

I have added epel-packagers-sig as collaborator, but please coordinate any changes with the primary maintainers.

Comment 5 Davide Cavalca 2022-07-15 23:45:42 UTC

Thanks! Requested branches:

$ fedpkg request-branch epel8
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/45802
$ fedpkg request-branch epel9
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/45803

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2022-07-20 02:45:11 UTC

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-b9ab35093f has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-b9ab35093f

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2022-07-20 02:45:37 UTC

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-bb5dfee8de has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-bb5dfee8de

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2022-07-21 01:10:27 UTC

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-bb5dfee8de has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-bb5dfee8de

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2022-07-21 17:17:49 UTC

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-b9ab35093f has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-b9ab35093f

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2022-07-29 01:51:35 UTC

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-bb5dfee8de has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2022-07-29 02:09:54 UTC

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-b9ab35093f has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.