Bug 2125333

Summary:	Please branch and build SLOF in epel9
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Davide Cavalca <davide>
Component:	SLOF	Assignee:	Fedora Virtualization Maintainers <virt-maint>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	rawhide	CC:	berrange, crobinso, orion, pbonzini, rjones, virt-maint
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	FutureFeature
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	SLOF-20210217-8.git33a7322d.el9	Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2023-08-18 07:26:52 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, 1995353

Description Davide Cavalca 2022-09-08 16:27:18 UTC

Please branch and build SLOF in epel8 and epel9.

If you do not wish to maintain SLOF in epel8 and 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/SLOF/addgroup
and grant it commit access, or collaborator access on epel* branches.

Comment 1 Daniel Berrangé 2022-09-08 16:48:43 UTC

SLOF is already part of RHEL-8, so I believe that makes it ineligible for EPEL-8.

EPEL-9 is probably ok though, since ppc64 virt stack was dropped in RHEL-9 (at least for now).

Comment 2 Davide Cavalca 2022-09-08 17:29:20 UTC

To my understanding, in RHEL 8 this is shipped in a non-default module stream, which should make it ok for EPEL per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy/

Comment 3 Daniel Berrangé 2022-09-08 17:34:14 UTC

(In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #2)
> To my understanding, in RHEL 8 this is shipped in a non-default module
> stream, which should make it ok for EPEL per
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy/

That probably changed in 8.5.0 when the separate VIRT-AV module stream was merged into the default module. SLOF RPMs are currently visible in 'AppStream' on ppc64 installs.

Comment 4 Davide Cavalca 2023-08-17 23:39:11 UTC

I'm rescoping this down to just epel9 in the interest of getting things moving again. AFAICT in c9s SLOF is marked as explicitly retired, so it should be eligible for epel9.

Will you be able to branch and build SLOF 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 5 Richard W.M. Jones 2023-08-18 07:26:52 UTC

Done, see https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/SLOF/settings#usersgroups-tab

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2023-08-18 15:09:20 UTC

FEDORA-EPEL-2023-77af23107c has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-77af23107c

Comment 7 Davide Cavalca 2023-08-18 15:25:51 UTC

Thank you! I've also submitted https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/SLOF/pull-request/2 to keep the branches in sync.

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2023-08-19 01:32:41 UTC

FEDORA-EPEL-2023-77af23107c 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-2023-77af23107c

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

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2023-08-20 00:39:07 UTC

FEDORA-EPEL-2023-77af23107c has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.