Bug 2049997

Summary:	Please build libxml++ for EPEL 9
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora EPEL	Reporter:	Robert Scheck <redhat-bugzilla>
Component:	libxml++	Assignee:	Haïkel Guémar <karlthered>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	epel9	CC:	gary.buhrmaster, icon, karlthered, notting
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	libxml++-2.42.2-1.el9	Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2022-12-08 01:11:13 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:	1914423, 2031776, 2144671

Description Robert Scheck 2022-02-03 01:27:31 UTC

Description of problem:
Please build libxml++ for EPEL 9, because it's a dependency of the libffado package.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
libxml++-2.42.1-3.fc36

Actual results:
No libxml++ in EPEL 9.

Expected results:
libxml++-2.42.1-3.el9 - or better ;-)

Additional info:
Please let me know if you are not interested in maintaining the package on EPEL 9 branch.

Comment 1 Robert Scheck 2022-05-26 14:29:33 UTC

If you do not wish to maintain libxml++ in epel9, or do not think you will be able to do this in a timely manner, the EPEL Packagers SIG would be happy to be a co-maintainer of the package; please add the epel-packagers-sig group through https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libxml++/addgroup and grant it commit access, or collaborator access on epel* branches.

Comment 2 Robert Scheck 2022-11-22 00:36:48 UTC

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

Comment 3 Robert Scheck 2022-11-29 06:27:20 UTC

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

Comment 4 Robert Scheck 2022-12-06 17:23:59 UTC

I've now filed https://pagure.io/releng/issue/11170 according to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-package-request/#epel_packagers_sig_members, because there was no response by the maintainer after three weeks and three attempts.

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2022-12-07 20:32:11 UTC

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-c38f50dd9d has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-c38f50dd9d

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2022-12-08 01:11:13 UTC

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-c38f50dd9d has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.