Description of problem: According to Packaging Guidelines and Policies for EPEL, packages from EPEL should never replace packages from the target base distribution. Nevertheless, EPEL for RHEL8 got libavc1394-0.5.4-23.el8.x86_64 even though appstream-8 already had libavc1394-0.5.4-7.el8.x86_64 Is this intentional? Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): libavc1394-0.5.4-23.el8.x86_64 How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info:
Strange; usually an EPEL8 branch request of a package already in CentOS-8 is rejected. Anyhow, it's the same rpm https://centos.pkgs.org/8-stream/centos-appstream-x86_64/libavc1394-0.5.4-7.el8.x86_64.rpm.html vs https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2450272 Orion, did not you see libavc1394 from CentOS-8 stream repos?
Ah, well the problem is that RHEL8 and CS8 does not ship libavc1394-devel.
(In reply to Antonio T. sagitter from comment #1) > Anyhow, it's the same rpm I'm not sure how it's the same rpm when it doesn't even have the same release, being 23.el8 vs 7.el8? It was causing us dependency issues and we had to filter it out.
(In reply to bugreports2005 from comment #3) > (In reply to Antonio T. sagitter from comment #1) > > Anyhow, it's the same rpm > > I'm not sure how it's the same rpm when it doesn't even have the same > release, being 23.el8 vs 7.el8? > It was causing us dependency issues and we had to filter it out. Yes, probably there is a dependency issue. Any chance to provide its devel package too?
This is indeed a policy violation. I'm not sure how an epel8 branch ever got approved in the first place. Regardless, libavc1394 must be retired from EPEL 8, which I've gone ahead and done. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libavc1394/c/2df8ac13eb995333f015889e94dbc695144d8057?branch=epel8 > Ah, well the problem is that RHEL8 and CS8 does not ship libavc1394-devel. In cases like this, the right approach is to request the devel packages be shipped in RHEL (usually CRB). A short term workaround (that may be permanent if the RHEL maintainer declines) is to create a <name>-epel package to provide the missing <name>-devel subpackage. Both of these scenarios are covered by the following document. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-missing-sub-packages/ I've gone ahead and created libavc1394-epel and added sagitter as a maintainer.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-440a278ebd (libavc1394-epel-0.5.4-7.0.el8) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-440a278ebd
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-440a278ebd has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-440a278ebd See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-440a278ebd (libavc1394-epel-0.5.4-7.0.el8) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.