Bug 2038283

Summary:	Please branch and build perl-Plack-Middleware-ReverseProxy for EPEL8
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Michel Lind <michel>
Component:	perl-Plack-Middleware-ReverseProxy	Assignee:	Emmanuel Seyman <emmanuel>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	rawhide	CC:	emmanuel, iarnell, perl-devel
Target Milestone:	---	Flags:	emmanuel: needinfo+ emmanuel: needinfo+
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	perl-Plack-Middleware-ReverseProxy-0.16-9.el8	Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:
Clones:	2043170 (view as bug list)		Environment:
Last Closed:	2022-01-26 18:07:56 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:
Bug Blocks:	2038285

Description Michel Lind 2022-01-07 17:07:43 UTC

This is a dependency for public-inbox, that I'm trying to package for EPEL8 and 9.

I'm happy to comaintain (FAS: salimma) and be set to be the POC for EPEL bugs. You can also add the epel-packagers-sig group as collaborator on epel* branches.

Thanks!

Comment 1 Michel Lind 2022-01-15 23:56:35 UTC

Will you be able to branch and build perl-Plack-Middleware-ReverseProxy in epel8 and epel9?
I would be happy to be a co-maintainer if you do not wish
to build it on epel9 (FAS salimma).

Comment 2 Emmanuel Seyman 2022-01-16 09:01:13 UTC

I've requested an epel8 branch: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/41013

For EPEL9, we still need perl-Plack

Comment 3 Michel Lind 2022-01-20 05:59:56 UTC

(In reply to Emmanuel Seyman from comment #2)
> I've requested an epel8 branch:
> https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/41013
> 
> For EPEL9, we still need perl-Plack

thanks, looks like the branch is processed. Can we just build this for EPEL 8 first? EPEL 9 is less urgent, for my package there are other missing dependencies and those requesting EPEL are still mostly on 8 for the next few months.

Comment 4 Michel Lind 2022-01-20 18:25:47 UTC

Making this bug EPEL8 only, I cloned it to request EPEL9 so when the EPEL8 update is pushed it won't auto-close the EPEL9 request.

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2022-01-20 19:08:55 UTC

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-d343e3c1cc has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-d343e3c1cc

Comment 6 Emmanuel Seyman 2022-01-20 19:11:31 UTC

(In reply to Michel Alexandre Salim from comment #4)
>
> Making this bug EPEL8 only, I cloned it to request EPEL9 so when the EPEL8
> update is pushed it won't auto-close the EPEL9 request.

This wouldn't have happened since the EPEL8 update wasn't tied to this bug.
Since this bug is now EPEL8-only, I've edited the update to auto-close the bug.

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2022-01-26 18:07:56 UTC

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-d343e3c1cc has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.