Description of problem: There is new upstream (happened even before the original author died), which owns rss2email on PyPI and new release. Important thing is that rss2email now requires python >= 3.2. https://github.com/wking/rss2email
Hmmm, the one packaged in Fedora is the one by Lindsey Smith, not Aaron: http://www.allthingsrss.com/rss2email/about/ I had seen a thread about either forking or changing maintainership some time ago, but not any outcome. Has there been an official announcement that this is not just another fork? http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.rss2email/14 | > Fork? So there is two rss2email versions? | > Or Lindsey's one is abandoned? | | I would characterize Lindsey's branch as at least temporarily on hold: https://github.com/turbodog/rss2email/pull/3#issuecomment-12050047 | I picked up rss2email maintainership and [...] http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.rss2email/1 | Re: new maintainer and mailing list for rss2email
Yes, but Lindsey’s upstream seems to be as dead as the Aaron’s one (sorry, cannot resist). wking's repo seems to be the last man standing.
I've approved your commit acl requests as I don't intend to hold up development. I see you're active on the new mailing-list already. This new fork is not ready to replace rss2email 2.71 in Fedora 18 and older. That's not because it uses Python 3, but because it's incompatible. Okay, it doesn't even try loading the old Python based config file (which could contain anything other than simple variable definitions), but it also doesn't seem to try converting an old feeds.dat into the new location. That would make it a very disruptive upgrade. A first try at installing official release 3.1 hasn't been fruitful here either (ImportError: cannot import name error). Perhaps I only made a mistake somewhere. Installing python3-feedparser didn't fix it. And it's true, there are other forks, some even from 2012. It could be that some people simply fork and continue with their own modifications instead of accepting Lindsey as an upstream. He might reject patches or take more time to merge them. Debian's package also contains a few patches for 2.71, which may or may not have been pushed upstream. I'll examine them.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 19 development cycle. Changing version to '19'. (As we did not run this process for some time, it could affect also pre-Fedora 19 development cycle bugs. We are very sorry. It will help us with cleanup during Fedora 19 End Of Life. Thank you.) More information and reason for this action is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora19
(In reply to comment #1) > Has there been an official announcement that this is not just another fork? More clarity (I think?) on the maintainer transition with Lindsey's blessing here [1]. (In reply to comment #3) > That's not because it uses Python 3, but because it's incompatible. Okay, it > doesn't even try loading the old Python based config file (which could > contain anything other than simple variable definitions), but it also > doesn't seem to try converting an old feeds.dat into the new location. That > would make it a very disruptive upgrade. This a concern shared by Etienne at Debian [2], you may want to collaborate on a solution. For converting the feed data, the easiest approach is probably: $ r2e run $ r2e opmlexport feeds.xml $ …upgrade… $ r2e import feeds.xml $ r2e run --no-send > A first try at installing official release 3.1 hasn't been fruitful here > either (ImportError: cannot import name error). Perhaps I only made a > mistake somewhere. Installing python3-feedparser didn't fix it. You also need a Python-3-compatible html2text, which Matěj has been working on [3]. You'd get a better error message except for some Python 3.3 regressions [4,5]. > Debian's package also contains a few patches for 2.71, which > may or may not have been pushed upstream. Etienne submitted the still-applicable Debian patches on 2012-12-10, and they were merged before v3.0. [1]: http://www.allthingsrss.com/rss2email/2011/03/version-2-71-release-plus-other-major-updates/comment-page-2/#comment-90270 [2]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.rss2email/153 [3]: https://github.com/mcepl/html2text/commit/f511f3c78e60d7734d677f8945580f52ef7ef742 [4]: http://bugs.python.org/issue15111 [5]: http://bugs.python.org/issue15316
(In reply to comment #5) > $ r2e import feeds.xml Oops. s/import/opmlimport/. I just pushed two patches to conserve feed names on future OPML roundtrips. This doesn't effect the upgrade from 2.x, though, since 2.x feeds were unnamed.
Just to keep track ... http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5480641 ... any comments and complaints are welcome.
(In reply to W. Trevor King from comment #5) > (In reply to comment #3) > > That's not because it uses Python 3, but because it's incompatible. Okay, it > > doesn't even try loading the old Python based config file (which could > > contain anything other than simple variable definitions), but it also > > doesn't seem to try converting an old feeds.dat into the new location. That > > would make it a very disruptive upgrade. > > This a concern shared by Etienne at Debian [2], you may want to collaborate > on a solution. Etienne has finished his conversion script [1] and rolled out an experimental 3.5 package for Debian [2]. I mentioned this on the mailing list [3], but I'm not sure everyone on this bug is subscribed. [1]: http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=users/emillon-guest/rss2email.git;a=blob;f=debian/r2e-migrate;hb=experimental [2]: http://packages.debian.org/experimental/rss2email [3]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.rss2email/174
(In reply to W. Trevor King from comment #8) > Etienne has finished his conversion script [1] and rolled out an > experimental 3.5 package for Debian [2]. I mentioned this on the mailing > list [3], but I'm not sure everyone on this bug is subscribed. Michael, what do you think? Should I try to create an experimental package for rss2email 3.5 (and appropriate python-html2text)? Or should I just take over this bug and run with it?
Including that conversion script for feeds.dat is the only way forward, IMO. I've only seen the http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.mail.rss2email feed traffic recently and have not had a look at the 3.5 or 3.6 releases yet.
*** Bug 1112977 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I have working package in http://fedorapeople.org/cgit/mcepl/public_git/rss2email.git/ (and http://fedorapeople.org/cgit/mcepl/public_git/python-html2text.git/ and http://fedorapeople.org/cgit/mcepl/public_git/python-feedparser.git/). I run them on RHEL-6, so I haven't tested it on Fedora at all, but I do run it as my production rss2email for some time already.
*** Bug 1183285 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
> URL: http://www.aaronsw.com/2002/html2text/ > Source0: https://github.com/mcepl/html2text/archive/%{version}.tar.gz After all the time Aaron's website has not been replaced by any of the forks. But which one of the forks to take? Current rss2email upstream refers to https://pypi.python.org/pypi/html2text instead. That's python-html2text-3.200.3-7.fc21 vs. html2text-2014.12.29.tar.gz for Fedora.
https://mschwendt.fedorapeople.org/rss2email-3.9-1.fc21.src.rpm https://mschwendt.fedorapeople.org/python-html2text-3.200.3.2014.12.29-1.fc21.src.rpm Somehow my r2e configuration on my feed machine has been broken. I restarted with the help of r2e-migrate, but need to revisit the rss2email.cfg completely.
This package has changed ownership in the Fedora Package Database. Reassigning to the new owner of this component.
(In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment #14) > After all the time Aaron's website has not been replaced by any of the > forks. But which one of the forks to take? Which is exactly the reason why I went with PyPI package. > Current rss2email upstream refers to > > https://pypi.python.org/pypi/html2text https://github.com/Alir3z4/html2text/ seems to be reasonably reasonable guy who collects tickets on the Aaron's issue tracker and he seems to maintain the fork reasonably well. (In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment #15) > Somehow my r2e configuration on my feed machine has been broken. I restarted > with the help of r2e-migrate, but need to revisit the rss2email.cfg > completely. Did you completely give up on rss2email or are you willing to give it another try and file a bug (here or in https://github.com/wking/rss2email/issues)?
It's more like I haven't followed activity of the new upstream and the forks of html2text as closely as some other people. There are other priorities for me currently. => Everyone, who's been playing with the new releases already should consider signing up as a (co-)maintainer for the packages at Fedora. Even introducing rss2email 3.x as a new package or subpackage would be an idea. rss2email 2.71 still works for me with a very simple config file. I'm not affected by any pet peeves either.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 23 development cycle. Changing version to '23'. (As we did not run this process for some time, it could affect also pre-Fedora 23 development cycle bugs. We are very sorry. It will help us with cleanup during Fedora 23 End Of Life. Thank you.) More information and reason for this action is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora23
*** Bug 1360747 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
You can find my rss2email v3.9 RPMs (f24,f25 and rawhide) with Debian patches and rss2email 2.x to rss2email 3.x migration tool here: http://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fszymanski/rss2email/ and the spec file here: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fszymanski/specfiles/master/rss2email/rss2email.spec
Thanks Filip. Installing now. I think we should have some resolution on this package. I see two possible alternatives. 1. Move rss2email v2 to copr and update with the newer version in the upcoming Fedora. Mention in the release notes. 2. We can have both rss2email packages with binaries r2e2 and r2e3. I think we should discourage promoting deprecated and unmaintained software in Fedora unless the maintainer wants to keep up with bug fixing. I personally vote for option number 1.
(In reply to Sudhir Khanger from comment #23) > 1. Move rss2email v2 to copr and update with the newer version in the > upcoming Fedora. Mention in the release notes. Leave v2 in EPEL-6, please. Otherwise (and if EPEL-7 version is made to work with the EPEL's python3), either option is OK with me.
This message is a reminder that Fedora 23 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 23. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '23'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 23 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
This message is a reminder that Fedora 24 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 2 (two) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 24. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '24'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 24 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Filip, would you be interested in taking over this package in Fedora?
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 27 development cycle. Changing version to '27'.
(In reply to Till Maas from comment #27) > Filip, would you be interested in taking over this package in Fedora? Yes, give me commit rights to the src repo.
(In reply to Filip Szymański from comment #29) > (In reply to Till Maas from comment #27) > > Filip, would you be interested in taking over this package in Fedora? > > Yes, give me commit rights to the src repo. Awesome, What is your FAS ID? Please make sure that you logged-in into the src.fpo web interface at least once in the past. I will add you when I get your FAS ID.
(In reply to Till Maas from comment #30) > Awesome, What is your FAS ID? Please make sure that you logged-in into the > src.fpo web interface at least once in the past. I will add you when I get > your FAS ID. Fedora Account System Username: fszymanski
(In reply to Filip Szymański from comment #31) > (In reply to Till Maas from comment #30) > > Awesome, What is your FAS ID? Please make sure that you logged-in into the > > src.fpo web interface at least once in the past. I will add you when I get > > your FAS ID. > > Fedora Account System Username: fszymanski Thank you for your patience. I made the switch now.
This message is a reminder that Fedora 27 is nearing its end of life. On 2018-Nov-30 Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 27. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '27'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 27 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Fedora 27 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2018-11-30. Fedora 27 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.