Please branch and build gtksourceview4 in epel8. If you do not wish to maintain gtksourceview4 in epel8, 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/gtksourceview4/addgroup and grant it commit access, or collaborator access on epel* branches. Note: This is a breakout from bug #2012355 to clearly differentiate between EPEL 8 and 9, which have different situations: gtksourceview4 is not in RHEL 8, so it can be branched simply for EPEL 8 (where as gtksourceview4 is in RHEL 9 except for -devel, which lead to gtksourceview4-epel, as short-term solution, according to the EPEL policy).
Hi Pete, i am fedora Mate maintainer and we are currently building the whole MATE desktop for epe8. Can you please build gtksourceview4 for epel8 ?
Will you be able to branch and build gtksourceview4 in epel9? The EPEL Packagers SIG would be happy to be a co-maintainer if you do not wish to build it on epel9.
ping!
Will you be able to branch and build gtksourceview4 in epel8? The EPEL Packagers SIG would be happy to be a co-maintainer if you do not wish to build it on epel8.
I've now filed https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10929 according to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-package-request/#epel_packagers_sig_members, because there was no response by the maintainer after three weeks and three attempts.
(In reply to Robert Scheck from comment #5) > I've now filed https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10929 according to > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-package-request/ > #epel_packagers_sig_members, because there was no response by the maintainer > after three weeks and three attempts. +1, thanks.
(In reply to Pete Walter from comment #6) > (In reply to Robert Scheck from comment #5) > > I've now filed https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10929 according to > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-package-request/ > > #epel_packagers_sig_members, because there was no response by the maintainer > > after three weeks and three attempts. > > +1, thanks. Sigh. Why not adding simply Robert or me as co-maintainers instead of clapping your hands to fedora bureaucracy. Thank you.
See https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10929#comment-808502 Pete, can you please add Robert or me as co-mantainer to maintain epel?
Looks like Kevin already added both you and the EPEL packagers SIG so you both should be good to go.
I've requested the branch via https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/46046 and I'll build the package afterwards, too.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-69f1088cec has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-69f1088cec
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-69f1088cec has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.