Please branch and build libnma in epel10. If you do not wish to maintain libnma in epel10, or do not think you will be able to do this in a timely manner, I would be happy to be a co-maintainer of the package (FAS: salimma); please add me through https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libnma/adduser
COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/salimma/openvpn-el10/build/8262594/
Ping: can we get libnma build on epel10? The Fedora rawhide version builds with no modifications on epel10. If you do not wish to maintain libnma in epel10, or do not think you will be able to do this in a timely manner, I would be happy to be a co-maintainer of the package (FAS tdawson); please add me through https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libnma/adduser
Hi, libnma is already built in RHEL10, I think there is no need to build it in EPEL?
Ah, looking again, it is libnma-gtk4 libnma-gtk4-devel that is missing and required for the NetworkManager* packages. We totally missed that libnma was already available. We should have done the request at the RHEL level.
I have the same issue building EPEL10 NetworkManager-l2tp VPN plugin. libnma-gtk4 is in the CentOS Stream 10 AppStream repository, so isn't missing. libnma-gtk4-devel is a buildroot-only package (buildroot level 1) in the c10s-build repository, so isn't accessible to EPEL10 builds. Extract from the EPEL FAQ "How do I build a package that needs that missing -devel package?" : There is a short term and a long term solution. These two solutions should be used together. - Short Term: Create an epel package that only has the missing packages. * Be prepared to maintain this package as long as it is needed. * It is recommended that you name it <package>-epel. * It is recommended that you add the epel-packaging-sig group as a co-maintainer/ * It qualifies for an exception to the review process[1] so you can request the repo with fedpkg request-repo --exception <package>-epel * If you need help building this, ask for help. We have some examples. * When/If the missing package(s) are added to RHEL CRB, retire your -epel package. - Long Term: Request the package be added to RHEL CRB repository. * To initiate this process, please file a bug in https://bugzilla.redhat.com and request it be added to RHEL. Report the bug against the "CentOS Stream" version. * Be sure to say that it is impacting an EPEL build, and which package it is impacting. I'm guessing part of the original bug report is about the short term fix option which involves maintaining a libnma-gtk4-devel-epel package that is based on a slightly modified version of the libnma source RPM. I was going to post a bug report for the long term option which involves moving libnma-gtk4-devel from buildroot level 1 to the RHEL 10 CRB repository and filing the bug against CentOS Stream 10, but then saw this bug report, which would've made mine a duplicate.
Correction for the short-term fix, the source package name should be libnma-epel (not libnma-gtk4-devel-epel like I incorrectly suggested) and it would generate the missing libnma-gtk4-devel package in EPEL10. Regarding an example -epel package, there are anumber of them in EPEL8 and EPL9, here is a sample source -epel package from EPEL9 which only generates the missing binary packages not in RHEL9: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cogl-epel/tree/epel9
I have created and issue to try to get libnma-gtk4-devel into CRB https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-72830
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora Linux 42 development cycle. Changing version to 42.