On Thu, Nov 6, 2025 at 4:42 PM Fabio Valentini <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > TL;DR: I want to update rust-foldhash from v0.1.* to v0.2.* (and > adding rust-foldhash0.1 as a compat package that continues to ship > v0.1.*) in EPEL 10.1 to un-break an accidentally introduced broken > dependency and to un-block other bug fixes, so this update might have > been necessary for EPEL 10.1 eventually anyway. > This would be a transparent update for dependent packages since RPM > dependencies between Rust crates are never based on actual package > names but only on virtual Provides that are package name independent.
Seems reasonable to me. > Full version: > > I would like to update the rust-foldhash package in EPEL 10.1 from > version 0.1 to 0.2. In the short-term this would fix a broken > dependency that I accidentally introduced in a different package > (rust-toml, which bumped its dependency on rust-foldhash from v0.1 to > v0.2), and which in turn, now breaks build dependencies of uv (see > https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/uv?collection=epel10.1 ). > > I'm sorry for the breakage caused here, I'm usually better at catching > this issue before it's too late. I can only say "there is currently no > way to 'mock --postinstall' locally for epel10.1, which would have > caught this issue" in my defense. :) It's true that there isn't a config for this included in mock-core-configs. My recommendation would be to instead run `fedpkg scratch-build` from the epel10.1 branch. > The update for rust-foldhash v0.2 was previously handled for EPEL 10.2 here: > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-31bb34b75d > With this update we also introduced a "compat" package for v0.1, so > existing dependent packages that pin v0.1 were transparently switched > to the "compat" package. > > So, this would only be an "incompatible" update in the most strictest > reading of the EPEL Updates Policy - but it would be a transparent > update for all dependent packages that follow the Rust Packaging > guidelines (all of them do). > > Also note that the foldhash v0.2 update is one "prevented by policy" > update in EPEL 10.1 that is already blocking other non-breaking > package updates (because many projects have already bumped their > dependency to v0.2, most often even in *.*.z / bugfix releases) and > EPEL 10.1 is not even released yet. While RHEL 10.1 hasn't been released yet, EPEL 10.1 has. Please don't treat EPEL minor versions newer than the current RHEL minor version as pre-release, because they are already being consumed by CentOS users. > I suspect that we might have needed to initiate this process for this > update eventually anyway just to unblock other bug fixes in packages > that depend on foldhash - which is why I think this is a reasonable > "incompatible, but ... not actually" abstract epel update policy > exception request proposal factory singleton. > > Fabio > -- > _______________________________________________ > epel-devel mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > 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/[email protected] > Do not reply to spam, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue -- Carl George -- _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
