Bug 2032007

Summary:	Please branch and build latexmk for EPEL9
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Ben Beasley <code>
Component:	latexmk	Assignee:	Ben Beasley <code>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	rawhide	CC:	itsme_410, loganjerry, mefoster
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	latexmk-4.76-2.el9	Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2021-12-26 00:26:17 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 Ben Beasley 2021-12-13 20:50:31 UTC

I have quite a few Python packages that are just now able to build in EPEL9, except that they build PDF documentation via Sphinx, which requires latexmk. I’d like to avoid disabling and later re-enabling all of these documentation subpackages.

Could you please branch and build latexmk in EPEL9 at your earliest convenience? The version in Rawhide should work without modification.

Thanks!

Comment 1 Jerry James 2021-12-13 22:36:38 UTC

Ben, you've done a lot for me, and I hate to tell you no.  But I don't currently maintain any EPEL packages, and I'm not very enthusiastic about starting to do so.  I've got all I can do just keeping up with Fedora packages, exactly the reason I'm trying to move away from the math packages.

I am open to adding you (or any other interested party) as comaintainer, to handle the EPEL side of things.  Is that acceptable?

Comment 2 Ben Beasley 2021-12-13 22:47:03 UTC

(In reply to Jerry James from comment #1)
> I am open to adding you (or any other interested party) as comaintainer, to
> handle the EPEL side of things.  Is that acceptable?

Probably—I’ll take a look at the latexmk package and let you know.

If not, your clear “no” is still helpful, since it lets me simply remove affected documentation and move forward.

Comment 3 Ben Beasley 2021-12-13 22:49:56 UTC

I’ll note that you *do* have an EPEL co-maintainer for latexmk, but I don’t know if they are planning to handle EPEL9. I’ll set NEEDINFO for them to see if they want to comment, since I don’t want to step on their toes.

Comment 4 Jerry James 2021-12-13 22:54:02 UTC

Ha!  I'd completely forgotten about that.  I'm too used to being the lone wolf... :-)

Comment 5 Ben Beasley 2021-12-13 23:02:06 UTC

Having looked through the package, I’m happy to be an additional EPEL co-maintainer if you need one.

Comment 6 Jerry James 2021-12-14 00:09:07 UTC

I have waved the appropriate magic wand and you are now a comaintainer.

Comment 7 Ben Beasley 2021-12-17 13:38:13 UTC

(In reply to Jerry James from comment #6)
> I have waved the appropriate magic wand and you are now a comaintainer.

Thanks! Having waited what I think is an appropriate amount of time for input from the other EPEL co-maintainer, I’m going to go ahead and take care of this.

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2021-12-17 14:19:07 UTC

FEDORA-EPEL-2021-b62a4b6904 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-b62a4b6904

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2021-12-18 02:27:50 UTC

FEDORA-EPEL-2021-b62a4b6904 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-2021-b62a4b6904

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

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2021-12-26 00:26:17 UTC

FEDORA-EPEL-2021-b62a4b6904 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 Red Hat Bugzilla 2023-09-15 01:18:09 UTC

The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 500 days