Hi, Il giorno gio 29 mag 2025 alle ore 00:08 Christian Krause < c...@fedoraproject.org> ha scritto:
> Hi, > > On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 12:04 PM Christian Krause <c...@fedoraproject.org> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 8:08 AM Sandro <li...@penguinpee.nl> wrote: >> >>> On 28-05-2025 06:26, Federico Pellegrin wrote: >>> > I'm trying to get pysnmp have a working build (broken since Fedora >>> 40). I >>> > had the luck to had the fix merged a few months ago, but was never >>> built >>> > despite multiple reminders so it still keeps being broken. >>> >>> If the fix was merged, but has never been built (successfully) in Koji, >>> any packager can fire off a new build in rawhide. >>> >> >> I'm also affected by the pysnmp problem in F42. I will take care of the >> F42/F43 build (and update in bodhi) later today. >> > > Please find the update for F42 here: > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-878c0f02b7 > The build for F43 is in koji: > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2720576 as well. > Christian thank you very much for this, very appreciated! In the meantime there were some more bumps to the package, but we can see that later once this is clarified to bump again. I'm a bit surprised about what you mention for F41 as with F40 I had multiple problems due to Python incompatibilities, so while I did not try (jumped 40->42) I'd imagine the same ones would be in 41. But as you say, it is also totally true that the major version brought breaking changes as well, absolutely! (but between a broken package and a broken API I'd imagine we could go for the latter ;-) ) On co-maintaining: I've also offered myself for that (when I tried to reach directly via email) as I need this package quite often and would like to see it active. I'd also like the simulator one, but that is also stale upstream so I am maintaining it just locally for our project for the time being, see: https://github.com/lextudio/snmpsim/pull/6 . Just mentioning this as if there is more interest maybe we can try to push this forward. @Carl George: WRT the previous bugzilla/fesco closed on same topic, I'm not sure if this is meant as good or bad (ie. I totally understand we all have many things to do and we can be sometimes late, no doubt on that). But here IMO we had a case of a package broken (and with a possible solution offered by someone) for 2 releases (so ~1 year) which maybe is a bit long-ish ;-) So in case let me know if you prefer me to follow the procedure (ie. wait 1 week and fill fesco bug) or not. Many thanks again, Federico
-- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
