On 2019-11-14 16:13, Denis Arnaud wrote:
Thanks Petr for your answer!
Let's give the COPR short-term solution a try, then :)
What is frustrating is that we cannot get our hands on the package
source for Protobuf for RHEL/CentOS, and we cannot therefore know who
maintains it at RedHat.
The maintainer is (usually, effectively) also the Bugzilla assignee.
For Boost for instance, which is also a RedHat
core package, I know the RedHat maintainer (Jon Wakely) and can
co-maintain Boost with him and have an influence on (non-EPEL)
RHEL/CentOS Boost.
In my personal opinion, that's the way it should be; it benefits both
Red Hat and the community.
At least, we get visibility on when, why and how
Boost is rebuilt on RHEL/CentOS. It would be nice to achieve the same
with Protobuf. But I have no clue on how to identify who at RedHat is
(are) the main maintainer(s) of Protobuf. I am sure they would be
interested if I/we can build protobuf with Python bindings for
RHEL/CentOS 8 (at least on EPEL).
And it seems strange to me that RHEL/CentOS misses Python bindings for
Protobuf (which is the cornerstone to many frameworks (e.g., gRPC)). I
wonder how many applications work at all. Or maybe those Python bindings
are build-time only in the new modularization framework?
It would help to have a way, for Fedora/EPEL volunteers, to be able to
reach out to RedHat core package maintainers, at least for
cross-awareness, knowledge sharing and potential collaboration.
Kind regards
Denis
14 Nov. 2019 15:27, Petr Viktorin <pvikt...@redhat.com
<mailto:pvikt...@redhat.com>> wrote:
On 2019-11-11 11:45, Denis Arnaud wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the Python (3) bindings are missing on RHEL/CentOS/EPEL 8 for
the
> protobuf package (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/protobuf).
> A bug request has been created on Bugzilla
> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1765844), but as
no status
> has been given, I was wondering whether someone could shed
some light on
> the context.
>
> Since protobuf is a RedHat core package (maintained by RedHat
and
> therefore not managed by Fedora/EPEL), it appears as a kind
of black box
> from Fedora perspective. On Fedora (Rawhide, 31), the Python (3)
> bindings are generated/packaged (see for instance
>
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-e3a662fe8b and
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=19440119),
but for
> some reason, those Python bindings are not generated by
RedHat for
> RHEL/CentOS 8.
>
> 1. Would anyone from RedHat be able to provide some heads up
on why
> those Python 3 bindings are missing for Protobuf, and/or an
approximate
> timeline for when it would be generated?
Hi!
We just talked about this among Red Hat python-maint. (Sorry for
the
delay!) We don't have influence over this package; unfortunately we
can't help directly.
> 2. Would RedHat need help with packaging protobuf on
RHEL/CentOS/EPEL 8?
At this level "Red Hat" is not a single entity. You're probably not
reaching the right people on this list.
If the packager isn't active in Fedora or on Bugzilla, then
unfortunately, the way to get them to respond is to file a customer
support ticket.
Another way to approach this is change EPEL rules somehow to
make it
possible to build subpackages like this. From what I understand,
it's
being discussed, but it'll take time to get sorted out.
> 3. Would you recommend another way for Fedora packagers/users
to get
> their hands on the python3-protobuf/protobuf-python3 package?
For
> instance, through COPR, or some module we may have missed.
Building a replacement protobuf package in COPR is the best
short-term
solution.
Sorry I couldn't be more helpful.
_______________________________________________
python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-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/python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
