Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/juliaup.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/juliaup-1.17.4-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: Julia installer and version multiplexer. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe
koji scratch build for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=123105692
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7997618 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2310720-juliaup/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07997618-juliaup/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
The binary /usr/bin/julia conflicts with the julia package. Per [1], *something* needs to be done about this – it can’t just be an implicit conflict. I don’t think I understand this well enough to make a recommendation. I see that upstream recommends uninstalling all other Julias before using juliaup[2], and strongly recommends installing via "curl | bash" rather than using package managers[3] due to unspecified “drawbacks (that we hope to lift in the future).” I’m not sure what to think about all that. [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Conflicts/#_binary_name_conflicts [2] https://github.com/julialang/juliaup?tab=readme-ov-file#installation [3] https://github.com/julialang/juliaup?tab=readme-ov-file#software-repositories
You are correct, making the Conflicts explicit is probably a good idea. There's been a few threads about packaged julia in the past. This bug has some context for why packaging it (without bundling the world) is basically impossible: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274270 There was also a discussion on the "devel" list: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/J423CXSMKN525MFGQHHNTNPTSJOKOI4E/
I've added explicit "Conflicts: julia". [fedora-review-service-build]
Created attachment 2047557 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7997618 to 8034125
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8034125 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2310720-juliaup/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08034125-juliaup/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ Please know that there can be false-positives. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.
I'll ask around if anybody is still interested in getting this packaged ...
I'm going to abandon this for now.