Bug 2313948

Summary:	uwsgi-plugin-rack: fails to install from epel10
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora EPEL	Reporter:	Carl George 🤠 <carl>
Component:	uwsgi	Assignee:	Ralf Ertzinger <redhat-bugzilla>
Status:	ASSIGNED ---	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	epel10	CC:	python-packagers-sig, redhat-bugzilla
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	Reopened
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:	2024-09-23 09:26:39 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:	2314185
Bug Blocks:

Description Carl George 🤠 2024-09-21 06:26:15 UTC

Description of problem:
uwsgi-plugin-rack from epel10 has an unresolved dependency, causing it to be uninstallable.


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
uwsgi-plugin-rack-2.0.26-6.el10_0


How reproducible:
always


Steps to Reproduce:
1. dnf install uwsgi-plugin-rack


Actual results:
Error: 
 Problem: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides rubygem-rack needed by uwsgi-plugin-rack-2.0.26-6.el10_0.x86_64 from epel


Expected results:
successful installation

Comment 1 Ralf Ertzinger 2024-09-21 16:12:25 UTC

Looks like `rubygem-rack` comes from EPEL in earlier RHEL versions, but isn't present for EPEL10 (yet).

The only thing I can realistically do is not build the rack plugin for EPEL10, but if you want that this isn't going to be a lot of help. Otherwise you'd have to convince whoever maintains `rubygem-rack` for the other EPEL versions to build for EPEL10?

Comment 2 Carl George 🤠 2024-09-22 01:51:37 UTC

> The only thing I can realistically do is not build the rack plugin for EPEL10,

Based on the current spec file, this seems like standard practice for uwsgi plugins in EPEL branches that don't have all necessary dependencies.  See the conditionals for zeromq, perlcoro, glusterfs, java, etc.  So yeah, do that.

> but if you want that this isn't going to be a lot of help.

Yes, it is helpful to remove packages from the repo that don't install.  It is not allowed to have packages in EPEL with unresolved dependencies.

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-packaging/#package_dependencies

> Otherwise you'd have to convince whoever maintains `rubygem-rack` for the other EPEL versions to build for EPEL10?

I didn't ship an uninstallable package, you did.  So the responsibility is yours to disable the subpackage or request the necessary dependencies.  Since the maintainers of rubygem-rack have built it in epel7, epel8, and epel9, it's a good bet that they'll be willing to ship it in epel10 as well.

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-package-request/

Comment 3 Carl George 🤠 2024-09-24 18:52:10 UTC

Now there is a different error.

Error: 
 Problem: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides uwsgi-plugin-rack = 2.0.26-8.el10_0 needed by uwsgi-plugin-fiber-2.0.26-8.el10_0.x86_64 from epel

Please include this subpackage in the ruby_rack conditional.

Comment 4 Carl George 🤠 2024-09-27 03:46:24 UTC

I can see that bug 2314185 added rubygem-rack, and that the rack plugin was re-enabled in uwsgi-2.0.27-1.el10_0.  The last thing needed to close out this bug is to adjust the conditionals so that uwsgi-plugin-fiber is also disabled when uwsgi-plugin-rack is disabled.  I took a look at sending a PR for this, but it's not clear to me how the ruby_rack conditional is supposed to interact with the ruby19 conditional.