Please provide a co-maintainer, I have no interest in maintaining this for EPEL-10.

Sure, I guess I could maintain it in EPEL10 (FAS: music). I don’t really want to be responsible for sox or festival there, but opusfile should be very little effort to maintain. Are you not maintaining the existing EPEL9 and EPEL8 branches? In that case, you could make me the EPEL bugzilla assignee.

Expect a PR shortly with a couple of minor enhancements – at least finishing the SPDX conversion and not globbing over the shared object version number in the files list.

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/opusfile/pull-request/2

I’ve decided to ask for festival-freebsoft-utils to be untagged from EPEL10 until and unless its runtime dependencies are eventually branched and built there. I’m sure there are people for whom having festival and sox in EPEL10 would be useful, but I’m not going to put further effort into arranging it myself, so I’m closing this request.

(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #4)
> I’ve decided to ask for festival-freebsoft-utils to be untagged from EPEL10
> until and unless its runtime dependencies are eventually branched and built
> there. I’m sure there are people for whom having festival and sox in EPEL10
> would be useful, but I’m not going to put further effort into arranging it
> myself, so I’m closing this request.

While you have opened this request, this bug blocks other packages. So please don't simply close it. Is there a particular reason for "dropping" it from EPEL 10 when it is in EPEL 9? Otherwise, I may take it up for EPEL 10.

I am happy for the package to be in EPEL10, preferably after merging PR#2. As far as I can tell there is no reason not to build this in EPEL10 other than the primary maintainer’s disinterest. I am even still willing to co-maintain this particular package (but not necessarily any of the others, like festival or sox) in EPEL, if needed.

Anyway, you could have opened your own new request, but it’s fine that you’ve reopened this bug, too.

I'm also interested in opusfile, because it's a dependency of audacious. Similar like Ben, I'm willing to co-maintain this particular package in EPEL, if needed (FAS: robert).

Hi, can you request branch EPEL10 ? we need this for pygame 

you can also add me as admin to proceed (FAS: sergiomb)

FEDORA-EPEL-2024-3917d725ee (opusfile-0.12-15.el10_0) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.0.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-3917d725ee

FEDORA-EPEL-2024-3917d725ee 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-2024-3917d725ee

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

FEDORA-EPEL-2024-3917d725ee (opusfile-0.12-15.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.