[Bug 1828059] New: Review Request: boost1.73 - The free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828059
Bug ID: 1828059 Summary: Review Request: boost1.73 - The free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries Product: Fedora EPEL Version: epel8 Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: denis.arnaud_fedora@m4x.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://github.com/fedorapackaging/fedorareviews/blob/a4722663644e33ac20ecff... SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/6687/43816687/boost1.73-1.73....
Description: A few packages require a fairly recent Boost version, which EPEL does not provide. EPEL 6 and 7 have had Boost-1.48, Boost-1.59 and Boost-1.69 for a while (as parallel installations), thanks also to Robert Scheck and Haïkel Guémar. The very same way those versioned Boost packages have been built for EPEL, it is therefore proposed to build Boost-1.73 for EPEL 7 and 8, as a parallel installation to the currently officially supported Boost packages (Boost-1.53 on EPEL 7 and Boost-1.66 on EPEL 8).
To minimize the work (and the support!) to be required, both the pristine Boost-1.73 package on Fedora 33 and versioned Boost-1.69 on EPEL 7 serve as a basis, as they cleanly build on at least EPEL 8 (and most probably on EPEL 7). If relevant in the future, for EPEL 6, work-arounds of Boost148 may have to be re-injected.
References: * Review request for Boost-1.69 on EPEL 7: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1667725 * Review request for Boost-1.59 on EPEL 7: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391444 * Review request for Boost-1.57 on EPEL 6 and 7: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210993 * Review request for Boost-1.48 on EPEL 5 and 6: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921134 * Review request for Boost-1.41 on EPEL 5: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673839 * Feature request for Boost-1.73 on Fedora: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F33Boost173
-- Note that at the time of writing (26 April 2020), Boost 1.73.0 is still available as RC 1 only. It should become the official Boost 1.73.0 version very soon by now.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828059
Jonathan Wakely jwakely@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jwakely@redhat.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828059
Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828059
--- Comment #2 from Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fedora@m4x.org --- Does anybody knows how EPEL branches can be created for that boost.173 package? I've tried by creating a ticket with fedpkg (https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/28809), but with no success so far...
We have no intention to use the Fedora branches, as this is explicitly an EPEL package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828059
Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|denis.arnaud_fedora@m4x.org |nobody@fedoraproject.org Status|ASSIGNED |NEW Flags|fedora-review+ |
--- Comment #3 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com --- Resetting ticket status, since the review-flag it's too old to allow repository creation. This package will need a fresh review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828059
Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pemensik@redhat.com
--- Comment #4 from Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com --- It would help if correct path were used. Spec URL: should lead to raw spec file. SRPM url does no longer exist, please use different place to store valid srpm. fedorapeople.org would be good candidate. fedora-review tool cannot process this review.
I am not sure whether is it possible to create repository without rawhide branch, just epel8 branch. To create repository first review+ flag is needed and reviewer has to assign bug to himself/herself. I think you need to have review+ first to be ready to create package. Then default branch might be solved. It seems at least rawhide branch might be needed. Wouldn't it work the same way for Fedora too?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828059
Carl George 🤠 carl@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |carl@redhat.com
--- Comment #5 from Carl George 🤠 carl@redhat.com ---
I am not sure whether is it possible to create repository without rawhide branch, just epel8 branch.
It's not. The way it works is once the package is approved the submitter can request the repo, request the desired epel branches, and then retire the rawhide branch later after the repo exists.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-faq/#is_it_possible_to_get_a_...
I would also suggest that this be reworked to be boost1.75 and kept in sync with the RHEL 9 boost package (which is version 1.75). That should make it easier to maintain going forward, especially regarding security backports.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828059
Carl George 🤠 carl@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed| |2022-07-14 20:03:12
--- Comment #6 from Carl George 🤠 carl@redhat.com --- I glanced at Denis's comment [0] in the failed repo request, and it reminded me that this package doesn't need a review because it fits the second bullet point listed under review exceptions [1]. Denis, you can run this command to get the distgit repo created:
fedpkg request-repo --exception <package name>
As a review isn't required, I'm going to close out this bug.
[0] https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/28809#comment-677415 [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/#...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828059
--- Comment #7 from Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fedora@m4x.org --- Thanks Carl, eventually someone told me how to create a repo for Boos1.xx EPEL packages!
For reference, Boost1.78 repository has been requested to be created (Boost 1.78 is the version on Rawhide): https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/45783
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com