Not sure what the intention of this bz is.
You raised it against fedora while pacemaker is available with fedora.
EPEL is an addon to RHEL or CentOS - right?
For RHEL pacemaker is available as part of the HighAvailability-Addon.
For Centos Stream 9 you e.g. have https://centos.pkgs.org/9-stream/centos-highavailability-x86_64/.

Please see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2086146
What you recommend to do?

Looking into the bug this one is blocking (bz2086146) issue should be raised rather against drbd in EPEL I guess.

From the suggestions there I would recommend (pun intended) 2.
Raising it against fedora pacemaker feels definitely wrong.

> From the suggestions there I would recommend (pun intended) 2.

I also think 2 is the best option.

> You raised it against fedora while pacemaker is available with fedora.

The pacemaker component doesn't exist in the "Fedora EPEL" bugzilla product.  It won't until pacemaker exists in an EPEL branch.  Opening a bug against the "Fedora" product to request it be built for EPEL is the documented process [0].


[0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-package-request/#starting_point

Pacemaker being a supported part of the RHEL HA-stack it is shipped via HighAvailability repo.
So there is no way of moving it to EPEL.
Other consistent possibility coming to my mind would be having drbd in HighAvailability
but I'm not aware of any current plans making drbd a supported part of RHEL which would
be the consequence.

> Pacemaker being a supported part of the RHEL HA-stack it is shipped via HighAvailability repo.
> So there is no way of moving it to EPEL.

This is false.  The policy [0] states that EPEL packages cannot conflict or disrupt packages in the "target base", which is defined as baseos, appstream, and crb.  This is enforced in fedpkg [1] and fedscm-admin [2].  A Fedora package can be branched for EPEL9 even if the same package exists in other RHEL repos such as highavailability.  That's not to say you are required to add it to EPEL of course, just that you are allowed to if you so desire.

[0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy/#_policy
[1] https://pagure.io/fedpkg/blob/d01db0f1863897083d5ae6f91be7fe2176c5f98e/f/fedpkg/utils.py#_366
[2] https://pagure.io/fedscm-admin/blob/bae61751d4a0a697a2214a409ea7947429d91572/f/fedscm_admin/utils.py#_773

(In reply to Carl George 🤠 from comment #7)
> > Pacemaker being a supported part of the RHEL HA-stack it is shipped via HighAvailability repo.
> > So there is no way of moving it to EPEL.
> 
> This is false.  The policy [0] states that EPEL packages cannot conflict or
> disrupt packages in the "target base", which is defined as baseos,
> appstream, and crb.  This is enforced in fedpkg [1] and fedscm-admin [2].  A
> Fedora package can be branched for EPEL9 even if the same package exists in
> other RHEL repos such as highavailability.  That's not to say you are
> required to add it to EPEL of course, just that you are allowed to if you so
> desire.
> 
> [0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy/#_policy
> [1]
> https://pagure.io/fedpkg/blob/d01db0f1863897083d5ae6f91be7fe2176c5f98e/f/
> fedpkg/utils.py#_366
> [2]
> https://pagure.io/fedscm-admin/blob/bae61751d4a0a697a2214a409ea7947429d91572/
> f/fedscm_admin/utils.py#_773

Thanks for pointing this out.
Maybe a bit of a misunderstanding here:
I deliberately had written ** moving ** and not ** adding ** which I guess
makes my statement correct because support requires Pacemaker to stay in
the HighAvailability repo. 
What I probably should have added is that having it in EPEL in parallel - 
with different versions and release cycles - while possible would probably
cause more confusion than it is helpful. And it adds effort and space for 
messing things up. At least as there is another simple approach to handle 
things here via weak dependency in the drbd-package ...