Bug 947127

Summary:	scons seems to be available on EL6, should be removed from EPEL
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora EPEL	Reporter:	Anssi Johansson <rhbugs>
Component:	scons	Assignee:	Jochen Schmitt <jochen>
Status:	CLOSED NOTABUG	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	el6	CC:	anto.trande, jochen, kevin, toracat, wnefal+redhatbugzilla
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2017-12-03 00:09:16 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:

Description Anssi Johansson 2013-04-01 17:35:11 UTC

Description of problem:
http://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/6Server/en/os/SRPMS/ has a source rpm for scons-2.0.1-1.el6, suggesting that scons is included in RHEL6. The same package appears to be available also on EPEL6, which is not in line with the EPEL policy. The EPEL scons packages should thus be retired.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
scons-2.0.1-1.el6

Disclaimer:
I don't know if RHEL6 actually ships the scons packages (on all architectures), or if the source rpm on ftp.redhat.com is only some stray source rpm, which shouldn't be there at all.

Comment 1 Akemi Yagi 2013-04-01 18:17:16 UTC

As far as I can tell, scons.noarch is available from rhel-x86_64-server-optional-6 but not from rhel-i386-server-optional-6 in RHEL 6.4.

Comment 2 Kevin Fenzi 2013-04-06 19:32:09 UTC

Right, so this is likely a https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#Limited_Arch_Packages package. 

Ie, added to epel in order to be used for 32bit packages that need it.

Comment 3 Akemi Yagi 2013-04-06 20:02:08 UTC

According to that guideline, the EPEL version/release needs to be lower than the RHEL one. Currently, they are identical at 2.0.1-1.el6. This probably does no harm, but should be taken care of in future releases.

Comment 4 Kevin Fenzi 2013-04-06 20:10:09 UTC

Sure, that guideline was written after epel6 had been going for a while, so initial packages just stuck with the identical version.

Comment 5 Antonio T. (sagitter) 2017-11-29 22:07:27 UTC

Is 'scons' still available on rhel6?

Comment 6 Akemi Yagi 2017-11-29 23:35:35 UTC

scons-2.0.1-1.el6.noarch is still available.

Comment 7 Kevin Fenzi 2017-12-03 00:09:16 UTC

Available Packages
scons.noarch                                             2.0.1-1.el6                                              base
scons.noarch                                             2.0.1-1.el6                                              epel

Since this is a limited arch package, this is all as expected. 
We could push a 2.0.1-0.1.el6 in epel6 (to match the current limited arch package guidelines), but that would be very messy at this point since it's been in with this version for ages and many people will have it installed. 

Feel free to reopen if there's further discussion/info to be had here.