Bug 2133111
| Summary: | [Tracker] python-flit-core for EPEL 8 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora EPEL | Reporter: | Maxwell G <maxwell> |
| Component: | distribution | Assignee: | Maxwell G <maxwell> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | epel8 | CC: | carl, kevin, mhroncok, pviktori |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2022-10-15 20:58:25 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: | 2133112, 2133113 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | |||
|
Description
Maxwell G
2022-10-07 23:20:22 UTC
I'll stick to maintaining this in Fedora and in Python 3.11+ stdlib. I've added you as collaborator for the epel branches. Please let me know if you need anything else from me! As for flit, IMO the component (SRPM) name "python-flit-core", without the "-epel" suffix, would be better -- it shouldn't cause any conflicts. FWIW, we'll probably be adding some kind of python3.11-flit-core component to RHEL9 in BZ#2127923. And a heads-up: for RHEL10, we're planning to replace all uses of tomli with tomllib from the Python 3.11+ standard library (same code, different name). IMO, EPEL10 should do the same. Hi Petr, (In reply to Petr Viktorin from comment #1) > I'll stick to maintaining this in Fedora and in Python 3.11+ stdlib. > I've added you as collaborator for the epel branches. Please let me know if > you need anything else from me! Can you please change the branch list from "epel8,epel9" to "epel*"? I'm thinking about branching this for EPEL 7, and also fedscm-admin denied the branch request, because it doesn't understand the "epel8,epel9" format[^1]. > > As for flit, IMO the component (SRPM) name "python-flit-core", without the > "-epel" suffix, would be better -- it shouldn't cause any conflicts. Ack. > And a heads-up: for RHEL10, we're planning to replace all uses of tomli with > tomllib from the Python 3.11+ standard library (same code, different name). > IMO, EPEL10 should do the same. I'll keep that in mind if/when people start requesting python-tomli for EPEL 10. [^1]: In case you're curious: I looked at the code and found that fedscm-admin does `fnmatch.fnmatch("epel8", "epel8,epel9")` here when it should be doing something like `any(fnmatch.fnmatch("epel8", pattern) for pattern in "epel8,epel9".split(","))`. I went to change the branch to epel[89], but it is already set to epel*. Yes, I updated to `epel*`, you should be unblocked. I also proposed a fix for fedscm-admin: https://pagure.io/fedscm-admin/pull-request/83 Thank you for both! I have submitted https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48139. FEDORA-EPEL-2022-5e36342ad8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-5e36342ad8 FEDORA-EPEL-2022-5e36342ad8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-5e36342ad8 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-EPEL-2022-5e36342ad8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. |