Bug 2048867
| Summary: | Please branch and build fpc for epel9 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora EPEL | Reporter: | Ian Laurie <nixuser> |
| Component: | fpc | Assignee: | Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | epel9 | CC: | fedora, joost, mattia.verga |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | x86_64 | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | fpc-3.2.2-9.el9 | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2022-08-25 16:33:02 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
Ian Laurie
2022-02-01 03:04:21 UTC
I would need some help with this, since FPC 3.2.2 depends on tex(imakeidx.sty), which is not available in EPEL9 (nor on EPEL8, that's why it still has FPC 3.2.0). Possible solutions: 1) Patch the docs to remove this dependency 2) Don't build the docs on EPEL9 at all 3) Use an older version FPC for now (3.2.0 did not have this dependency) 2) and 3) are pretty straightforward, but obviously 1) would be most preferable. I have zero experience working with LaTeX, though, so as I wrote earlier, I'd need some help. Sadly I've not had any contact with LaTeX either. Would an easier solution be to bring imakeidx.sty into EPEL9 or would that be an even bigger can of worms? The main issue with bringing imakeidx.sty into EPEL9, as far as I see, is that in Fedora, the package is built from the texlive SRPM. RHEL/CentOS ships its own texlive, but it doesn't contain all the packages Fedora's texlive has - and imakeidx.sty is one of the missing ones. So if we wanted to bring that into EPEL, we'd possibly end up in a situation where we have both RHEL texlive and EPEL texlive, conflicting with each other - or EPEL texlive would have to be built in some roundabout way, where the SRPM produces only the missing *.sty packages, omitting anything already provided by RHEL texlive. I'll drop an e-mail to texlive's maintainer, with a link to this bug, and ask them about their opinion. FEDORA-EPEL-2022-1592a79294 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-1592a79294 I ultimately decided to simply build the package without the docs, at least for the time being. Sorry for taking so long with this. FEDORA-EPEL-2022-1592a79294 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-2022-1592a79294 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-EPEL-2022-1592a79294 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. |