Bug 1828059
| Summary: | Review Request: boost1.73 - The free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora EPEL | Reporter: | Denis Arnaud <denis.arnaud_fedora> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
| Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | epel8 | CC: | carl, jwakely, package-review, pemensik |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2022-07-14 20:03:12 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: | |||
|
Description
Denis Arnaud
2020-04-26 14:56:20 UTC
* References: ** https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/#_package_review_process ** Repo creation request: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/28809 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. Resetting ticket status, since the review-flag it's too old to allow repository creation. This package will need a fresh review. 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? > 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_package_only_into_epel_and_not_fedora 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. 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/#_package_review_process 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 |