Bug 2078626

Steve, may I kindly ask you for some reaction here?

Cross-filed case 03234842 in the Red Hat customer portal. Please let us know if you need a business justification because above reasoning in the initial description is not good enough.

I'm a bit confused about this request. What is this package and why is it being requested? Is it filesystems or HA related?

I am in general following https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-missing-sub-packages/#long_term for inih-devel to get a current version of tio built for EPEL 9.

Hmm, ok. I wonder why this has come through to me in that case. I've never maintained that package, so it isn't something I'm familiar with. I suspect that there has been some mix up in terms of the bugzilla assignment and you may need to find someone else to assist. I'll ask the fs team anyway, but it doesn't sound like something that we would normally be involved with.

Ok, managed to solve some of this... it is apparently a dependency of xfsprogs! So that would perhaps explain why it has landed in my direction... still it is not something that we maintain I think, we just use it in one case. It may be that all other users have gone, so it defaulted ownership to us, perhaps... I don't think we want to maintain it in CRB as a general rule, but we'd have to look in more detail at the implications in order to fully understand the situation.

Yes, since at least RHEL 8.6, inih is a dependency of xfsprogs. And thanks for investigating.

This is fine with me, I filed a ticket to request this, we'll see if it works.

Hi Zorro - can I get a QE ack on this so we can approve this bug? This will not require any QE work at all, it's simply making these headers available to users for development, but that can't proceed without all of the usual bug approvals.

Thanks,
-Eric

(In reply to Eric Sandeen from comment #9)
> Hi Zorro - can I get a QE ack on this so we can approve this bug? This will
> not require any QE work at all, it's simply making these headers available
> to users for development, but that can't proceed without all of the usual
> bug approvals.

So we need a new erratum for this new package?
The inih-devel package is in Buildroot repo [1], so we would like to public and support it for customer by fs-devel/qe team?

Thanks,
Zorro

[1]
Available Packages
Name         : inih-devel
Version      : 49
Release      : 5.el9
Architecture : i686
Size         : 12 k
Source       : inih-49-5.el9.src.rpm
Repository   : beaker-BUILDROOT
Summary      : Development package for inih
URL          : https://github.com/benhoyt/inih
License      : BSD
Description  : This package contains development files for inih.
             : 
             : The inih package provides simple INI file parser which is only a couple of
             : pages of code, and it was designed to be small and simple, so it's good for
             : embedded systems.

> 
> Thanks,
> -Eric

Built inih-49-6.el9 for the required revision bump.

Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory (inih bug fix and enhancement update), and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2022:8359