Bug 2125333 - Please branch and build SLOF in epel9
Summary: Please branch and build SLOF in epel9
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: SLOF
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Fedora Virtualization Maintainers
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: EPELPackagersSIG 1995353
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2022-09-08 16:27 UTC by Davide Cavalca
Modified: 2023-08-20 00:39 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

Fixed In Version: SLOF-20210217-8.git33a7322d.el9
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-08-18 07:26:52 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Davide Cavalca 2022-09-08 16:27:18 UTC
Please branch and build SLOF in epel8 and epel9.

If you do not wish to maintain SLOF in epel8 and epel9,
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/SLOF/addgroup
and grant it commit access, or collaborator access on epel* branches.

Comment 1 Daniel Berrangé 2022-09-08 16:48:43 UTC
SLOF is already part of RHEL-8, so I believe that makes it ineligible for EPEL-8.

EPEL-9 is probably ok though, since ppc64 virt stack was dropped in RHEL-9 (at least for now).

Comment 2 Davide Cavalca 2022-09-08 17:29:20 UTC
To my understanding, in RHEL 8 this is shipped in a non-default module stream, which should make it ok for EPEL per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy/

Comment 3 Daniel Berrangé 2022-09-08 17:34:14 UTC
(In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #2)
> To my understanding, in RHEL 8 this is shipped in a non-default module
> stream, which should make it ok for EPEL per
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy/

That probably changed in 8.5.0 when the separate VIRT-AV module stream was merged into the default module. SLOF RPMs are currently visible in 'AppStream' on ppc64 installs.

Comment 4 Davide Cavalca 2023-08-17 23:39:11 UTC
I'm rescoping this down to just epel9 in the interest of getting things moving again. AFAICT in c9s SLOF is marked as explicitly retired, so it should be eligible for epel9.

Will you be able to branch and build SLOF in epel9? The EPEL Packagers SIG would be happy to be a co-maintainer if you do not wish to build it on epel9.

Comment 5 Richard W.M. Jones 2023-08-18 07:26:52 UTC
Done, see https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/SLOF/settings#usersgroups-tab

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2023-08-18 15:09:20 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-77af23107c has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-77af23107c

Comment 7 Davide Cavalca 2023-08-18 15:25:51 UTC
Thank you! I've also submitted https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/SLOF/pull-request/2 to keep the branches in sync.

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2023-08-19 01:32:41 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-77af23107c has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-77af23107c

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2023-08-20 00:39:07 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-77af23107c has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.