|
|
|
|
# EPEL-8 Packaging Procedures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Introduction
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When a new Red Hat Enterprise Linux occurs, one of the steps to get
|
|
|
|
|
EPEL going for it is branching of various packages into new
|
|
|
|
|
namespace. The EPEL Steering Committee does not mass branch all
|
|
|
|
|
existing packages into the namespace because it has caused multiple
|
|
|
|
|
problems:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. The package maintainers did not want to support the package in the
|
|
|
|
|
newer version of EPEL. Package maintainers may only want to support
|
|
|
|
|
certain versions of Enterprise Linux or may want to wait until their
|
|
|
|
|
favourite derivative appears.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. The package does not work in the latest version of RHEL. With
|
|
|
|
|
multiple years between releases, software which worked on Fedora 18
|
|
|
|
|
which would branch to EPEL-7 may not exist anymore with Fedora 28 and
|
|
|
|
|
EPEL-8 would need a completely different version.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Consumer request for packages
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People who are interested in getting packages into EPEL should contact
|
|
|
|
|
the package maintainer through
|
|
|
|
|
[bugzilla](https://bugzilla.redhat.com/). This allows for the requests
|
|
|
|
|
to be tracked and if the primary maintainer is not interested in
|
|
|
|
|
branching to EPEL, other ones can step in and do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## EPEL Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPEL packages are built against RHEL. EPEL Next is an additional repository
|
|
|
|
|
that allows package maintainers to alternatively build against CentOS Stream.
|
|
|
|
|
This is sometimes necessary when CentOS Stream contains an upcoming RHEL
|
|
|
|
|
library rebase, or if an EPEL package has a minimum version build requirement
|
|
|
|
|
that is already in CentOS Stream but not yet in RHEL. EPEL Next has its own
|
|
|
|
|
distgit branches, koji build targets, and bodhi releases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPEL Next packages have `.next` appended to the disttag (e.g. a disttag of
|
|
|
|
|
`.el8.next` for epel8-next) to provide an upgrade path from an EPEL package
|
|
|
|
|
that was built from the same distgit commit. A package maintainer can rebuild
|
|
|
|
|
the same commit for both EPEL and EPEL Next and get two different NVRs in koji.
|
|
|
|
|
Within six months, the build requirement necessitating building in EPEL Next
|
|
|
|
|
should be in RHEL, and at that time the package maintainer can do a normal
|
|
|
|
|
release bump commit in the EPEL branch and get a newer NVR than both the
|
|
|
|
|
previous EPEL and EPEL Next packages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To get started with EPEL Next, request the corresponding branch for the EPEL
|
|
|
|
|
release you are targeting, e.g. request an epel8-next branch to rebuild an
|
|
|
|
|
epel8 package against CentOS Stream 8. Once the branch is created you can
|
|
|
|
|
merge commits from other branches and submit a build just like you would for
|
|
|
|
|
other EPEL or Fedora branches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## EPEL Playground
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPEL Playground was shut down in January 2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPEL 8 Playground was a place that developers and maintainers could
|
|
|
|
|
"play around" with updated, or changed packages in epel. EPEL Playground
|
|
|
|
|
never really worked out and ended up being more burden than helpful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If developers or maintainers want something similar to EPEL Playground
|
|
|
|
|
we recommend Fedora COPR, which has availability for EPEL builds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Developer request for branching multiple packages
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Branching is handled the same way as requesting a branch using `fedpkg
|
|
|
|
|
request-branch`. A maintainer can request an epel8 branch using
|
|
|
|
|
`fedpkg request-branch epel8` which will create a ticket in
|
|
|
|
|
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issues and Release
|
|
|
|
|
Engineering will process these requests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To branch multiple packages please use this or a variant of this
|
|
|
|
|
script:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
#!/usr/bin/sh
|
|
|
|
|
# Reminder to get an updated pagure token for releng tickets
|
|
|
|
|
# Usage: epel-8.sh foo bar goo blah blech
|
|
|
|
|
if [ $# -lt 1 ]
|
|
|
|
|
then
|
|
|
|
|
echo "At least one package name should be provided"
|
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
|
TMPDIR=`mktemp -d /tmp/epel8.XXXXXX`
|
|
|
|
|
pushd "$TMPDIR"
|
|
|
|
|
for pkg in "$@"
|
|
|
|
|
do
|
|
|
|
|
fedpkg clone "$pkg"
|
|
|
|
|
pushd "$pkg"
|
|
|
|
|
fedpkg request-branch epel8
|
|
|
|
|
fedpkg request-branch epel8-playground
|
|
|
|
|
popd
|
|
|
|
|
done
|
|
|
|
|
rm -rfv "$TMPDIR"
|
|
|
|
|
fi
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Releng will then work through the tickets in the system which is
|
|
|
|
|
adding branches to the PDC and src.fedoraproject.org.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Known Issues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. /usr/bin/python does not exist. Choose ``/usr/bin/python3`` or
|
|
|
|
|
``/usr/bin/python2`` and patch appropriately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. ``python2-sphinx`` is not shipped. Most packages should work with
|
|
|
|
|
python3-sphinx, and if it doesn't please open a bug. The python team
|
|
|
|
|
has been good about making fixes for this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. When branching python packages, be aware that python in EL-8 is
|
|
|
|
|
python36 and not the version currently in rawhide. This has come up
|
|
|
|
|
with a couple of test packages where they assumed python37 or later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. ``systemd-rpm-macros`` is not a separate packages. If needed, used
|
|
|
|
|
``BuildRequires: systemd``
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5. While EL-8 comes with platform-python, it should NOT be used in
|
|
|
|
|
``Requires:`` unless absolutely neccessary. python3 should be used
|
|
|
|
|
instead. (Exceptions can be made but will be rare and need
|
|
|
|
|
justification.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Accepted Exceptions:**
|
|
|
|
|
* Use python3.6dist(coverage) instead of python3-coverage. This
|
|
|
|
|
package is not shipped but is needed in %check code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. Sometimes RHEL8 only has a python3 package for a dependency you
|
|
|
|
|
need for your build. (Example: python-bleach requires
|
|
|
|
|
python2-html5lib, but RHEL8 provides only python3-html5lib). For
|
|
|
|
|
EPEL-8.0 we only suggest one choice:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Choose not to have the python2 part of your package and patch
|
|
|
|
|
whatever to use python3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7. Python2 packages are discouraged. RHEL-8 will contain python2.7
|
|
|
|
|
until probably the end of life of RHEL-7. However support upstream
|
|
|
|
|
will only be minimal. When modularity occurs, we suggest that you make
|
|
|
|
|
whatever python2 packages modules which can be pulled out when
|
|
|
|
|
RHEL-8.N no longer has python2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8. While a RHEL src.rpm might produce a -devel package, it may not
|
|
|
|
|
currently be in the build repository. When running into this please
|
|
|
|
|
open a ticket with https://pagure.io/epel/new_issue for us to put in a
|
|
|
|
|
request for it to be added to Red Hat's Code Ready Builder. After
|
|
|
|
|
modularity is enabled, changes to what is done will be needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9. EPEL-8.0 may not work with the RHEL-8.1 beta. There seem to be
|
|
|
|
|
changes in dnf and zchunk which we have not worked out. This line will
|
|
|
|
|
be updated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Definitions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Package maintainer. Person who has accepted responsibility to
|
|
|
|
|
package and maintain software in the Fedora Project ecosystem. The
|
|
|
|
|
main packager is usually someone focused on Fedora Linux, and
|
|
|
|
|
secondary packagers may be focused on particular use cases like EPEL.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Consumer. A person who has subscribed to EPEL for packages but is
|
|
|
|
|
not a maintainer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. PDC. Product Definition Center. A tool to help list the lifetime
|
|
|
|
|
and permissions that a product has so that branching and updates can
|
|
|
|
|
be better managed.
|
