Bug 2303892 - Please branch and build systemd-extras in epel10
Summary: Please branch and build systemd-extras in epel10
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora EPEL
Classification: Fedora
Component: systemd-extras
Version: epel10
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robert Scheck
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
: 2359219 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks: EPEL10Tracker 2380827
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2024-08-09 19:44 UTC by Davide Cavalca
Modified: 2025-09-23 02:40 UTC (History)
10 users (show)

Fixed In Version: systemd-extras-257.9-2.el10_1 systemd-extras-257.9-2.el10_2 systemd-extras-257.9-2.el10_0
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2025-09-23 00:24:12 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Davide Cavalca 2024-08-09 19:44:21 UTC
Please branch and build systemd-extras in epel10.

If you do not wish to maintain systemd-extras in epel10,
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/systemd-extras/addgroup
and grant it commit access, or collaborator access on epel* branches.

Comment 1 Davide Cavalca 2024-08-23 17:02:44 UTC
Will you be able to branch and build systemd-extras in epel10?
The EPEL Packagers SIG would be happy to be a co-maintainer
if you do not wish to build it on epel10.

Comment 2 Robert Scheck 2024-08-23 17:50:45 UTC
I will try to work on this, however it makes less sense to me to just branch systemd-extras for epel10 to build the old systemd version.

Comment 3 Robert Scheck 2024-08-23 17:51:59 UTC
...especially as some people will yell, if a later update of systemd-extras contains breaking changes.

Comment 4 Davide Cavalca 2024-08-23 18:03:34 UTC
Yeah it probably makes sense to use 256 for epel10, as that's what's shipping in c10s at the moment.

Comment 6 Jonathan Wright 2025-06-12 20:47:58 UTC
+1

Need this for netplan in epel10

Comment 7 Neil Hanlon 2025-07-15 15:37:16 UTC
+1 we need this for OpenStack-Ansible

Comment 8 Jonathan Wright 2025-07-29 15:20:35 UTC
Will you be able to branch and build systemd-extras in epel10?
I would be happy to be a co-maintainer if you do not wish
to build it on epel10 (FAS: jonathanspw).

Comment 9 Robert Scheck 2025-07-29 19:37:29 UTC
*** Bug 2359219 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 10 Robert Scheck 2025-07-29 19:38:49 UTC
Sorry! It's on the top of my to-do list for the weekend.

Comment 11 Robert Scheck 2025-08-03 22:02:47 UTC
(In reply to nucleo from comment #5)
> https://repo.dynavirt.com/stream10/systemd-extras-257.2-1.el10/

Could you explain why you added these files to systemd-networkd?

 - /usr/lib/systemd/network/80-6rd-tunnel.link
 - /usr/lib/systemd/network/80-container-vb.link
 - /usr/lib/systemd/network/80-container-ve.link
 - /usr/lib/systemd/network/80-container-vz.link
 - /usr/lib/systemd/network/80-namespace-ns.link
 - /usr/lib/systemd/network/80-vm-vt.link

Comment 12 Robert Scheck 2025-08-03 23:14:28 UTC
While targetting 257.7, I run into some issues, of which most have been solved. While it's building, it still needs some polishing and testing (on top of my to-do list for next weekend). And I need to understand whether the *.link files really should be part of systemd-networkd (see comment #11), where help/input is welcome.

Comment 13 nucleo 2025-08-03 23:23:19 UTC
I am not maintain packages on that link. I posted link here only as possible solution in absence of package in el10 EPEL.
These files included in systemd package in Fedora but missing el10 systemd, so systemd-networkd looks like only place for them.

Comment 14 Davide Cavalca 2025-08-06 17:51:47 UTC
systemd .link dropins are processed by udev, not by systemd-networkd, that's likely why they're being shipped in the main systemd package in Fedora.

Comment 15 Dmitriy Rabotjagov 2025-08-07 11:14:01 UTC
+1 to .link explanation. While you create them as part as network configuration, it's systemd-udev which process them:
http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/latest/systemd.link.html

Comment 16 Robert Scheck 2025-08-07 11:16:34 UTC
nucleo, Davide, Dmitriy: So...what's your expectation? Should systemd-networkd simply ship the *.link files for EL10 (even they are processed by systemd-udev), because systemd in EL10 doesn't do so?

Comment 17 Dmitriy Rabotjagov 2025-08-07 11:27:22 UTC
@Robert I personally don't care at all about .link files, as this is part of the networkd configuration. So whenever you create a new interface - you need to also create a .link along with .network and .netdev.
Once new .link files are placed you do restart dbus and systemd-udevd to get devices created. Only then you restart systemd-networkd to configure these devices.
So for me value of default .link files is arguable tbh.

I _think_ you can also check how systemd-networkd is packaged for hyperscale SIG: https://mirror.stream.centos.org/SIGs/10-stream/hyperscale/

Another thing regarding that, is that I've spotted that you're building systemd-extras against stream 10. As for us the reason, why we can't use hyperscale SIG, is because systemd breaks really badly once attempted to be spawned on Rocky/Alma linux (or any other RHEL derivative).

So expectation from EPEL for systemd-extra would be to work outside of CentOS Stream 10, as this is currently a blocker to start upgrades to Rocky/Alma Linux 10 for us.

Comment 18 Robert Scheck 2025-08-07 11:38:28 UTC
(In reply to Dmitriy Rabotjagov from comment #17)
> I _think_ you can also check how systemd-networkd is packaged for hyperscale
> SIG: https://mirror.stream.centos.org/SIGs/10-stream/hyperscale/

Thank you for the pointer, will have a look to it.

> Another thing regarding that, is that I've spotted that you're building
> systemd-extras against stream 10. As for us the reason, why we can't use
> hyperscale SIG, is because systemd breaks really badly once attempted to be
> spawned on Rocky/Alma linux (or any other RHEL derivative).

I am not sure what you mean: I built systemd-extras for EL8 and EL9 not against Stream, and as it comes to 10, I will build systemd-extras for both, EL10 and EL10.1 (where latter is currently Stream). Given I also ensure no linking against libsystemd-shared or similar, there is no package dependency from systemd-networkd (and systemd-timesyncd) to a specific systemd version.

Comment 19 Dmitriy Rabotjagov 2025-08-07 11:50:55 UTC
> and as it comes to 10, I will build systemd-extras for both, EL10 and EL10.1 (where latter is currently Stream)

Sorry, I just spotted `stream10` in URI in your comment 11 so decided to mention that we're having issue with hyperscale SIG and networkd from there :) EL8 and EL9 always worked perfectly, so I totally trust your judgement here!

Comment 20 Dmitriy Rabotjagov 2025-08-19 15:22:46 UTC
Hi! Sorry, are there any updates on the topic?

Comment 21 Dmitriy Rabotjagov 2025-09-04 07:25:49 UTC
Hi!

Sorry for pings, but this report is over a year old now and absent systemd-networkd a blocker for us to start consuming EL10.

Do you need any help or maybe co-maintenance of the package?

Comment 22 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2025-09-12 01:50:20 UTC
This package has changed maintainer in Fedora. Reassigning to the new maintainer of this component.

Comment 23 Fedora Update System 2025-09-12 21:59:19 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-b3ba07d093 (systemd-extras-257.9-1.el10_2) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.2.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-b3ba07d093

Comment 24 Fedora Update System 2025-09-12 21:59:19 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-0c72091106 (systemd-extras-257.9-1.el10_1) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.1.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-0c72091106

Comment 25 Fedora Update System 2025-09-12 21:59:20 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-acfc83398c (systemd-extras-257.9-1.el10_0) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.0.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-acfc83398c

Comment 26 Fedora Update System 2025-09-13 03:55:53 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-b3ba07d093 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.2 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-b3ba07d093

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

Comment 27 Fedora Update System 2025-09-13 04:16:38 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-0c72091106 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.1 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-0c72091106

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

Comment 28 Fedora Update System 2025-09-13 04:21:57 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-acfc83398c has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-acfc83398c

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

Comment 29 Robert Scheck 2025-09-14 20:07:08 UTC
I'm sorry that it took so long for systemd-extras in EPEL 10.

Comment 30 Robert Scheck 2025-09-14 20:20:10 UTC
Oh, by the way, the SELinux policy in RHEL 10.0 doesn't cover systemd-networkd v257. However, it still worked for me, even there were some AVC denials. From what I see in the Git commits the SELinux policy should be updated for RHEL 10.1. In case we need a (temporary) SELinux module for systemd-networkd, some help would be appreciated.

Comment 31 Fedora Update System 2025-09-15 01:06:16 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-b3ba07d093 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.2 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-b3ba07d093

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

Comment 32 Fedora Update System 2025-09-15 01:12:00 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-0c72091106 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.1 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-0c72091106

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

Comment 33 Fedora Update System 2025-09-15 01:51:40 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-acfc83398c has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-acfc83398c

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

Comment 34 Fedora Update System 2025-09-23 00:24:12 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-0c72091106 (systemd-extras-257.9-2.el10_1) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.1 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 35 Fedora Update System 2025-09-23 00:24:17 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-b3ba07d093 (systemd-extras-257.9-2.el10_2) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.2 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 36 Fedora Update System 2025-09-23 02:40:58 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-acfc83398c (systemd-extras-257.9-2.el10_0) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 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.