#91 cascade effect of retirement of lmdb in EPEL8
Closed: Fixed 2 years ago by tdawson. Opened 2 years ago by carlwgeorge.

lmdb was added to EPEL8 on 2019-09-03. It was later added to RHEL8 on 2019-11-05. By EPEL policy, lmdb had to be retired. I noticed this on 2020-05-08 and filed rhbz#1833564. Today I followed up and retired the package myself due to lack of action from the maintainer.

After retiring the package, I noticed a problem. RHEL8 only added lmdb-libs, and declined to ship lmdb-devel. I've filed bugzillas to notify maintainers of EPEL8 packages that build require lmdb-devel. Of particular note to the KDE SIG is kf5-baloo. It will FTBFS the next time it is rebuilt. If the issue cannot be resolved, it will also have to be retired from EPEL8. The following packages build require kf5-baloo-devel:

  • dolphin
  • gwenview
  • plasma-desktop
  • plasma-mediacenter
  • plasma-milou
  • plasma-workspace

Possible solutions:

  • Convince RHEL to ship lmdb-devel in RHEL8 CRB, following this process.
  • Create a new lmdb-devel spec file for EPEL8, derived from the RHEL8 lmdb spec file, taking care to remove every package and file that is shipped in RHEL8.
  • Retire affected packages.

Comments about proposed solutions:

1 - Convince RHEL to ship lmdb and lmdb-devel in RHEL8 CRB
This is the only reasonable solution. I have created a bug for this.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1972979

2 - Create a new lmdb-epel for epel8
This is alot of needless work, because it isn't a one time thing. It will have to keep in step with the lmdb that is in RHEL8. This is only feasible if the RHEL package maintainers agree to support this.

3 - Retire affected packages.
Ya, you know I won't let that happen. Without those packages, there is no KDE Plasma Desktop (litterally) for RHEL8.

I don't see anything in epel8 that requires or build requires lmdb or lmdb-doc, so the only thing that is needed is lmdb-devel. I tinkered with it a bit, and was able to come up with a functional lmdb-devel only spec file. I set it up as lmdb-devel.spec creating lmdb-devel, but I could be swayed to have it be lmdb-epel.spec creating lmdb-devel instead.

lmdb appears to have only been updated once in RHEL8's lifecycle, so I don't think the maintenance burden would be that bad. I can request this (either as lmdb-devel or lmdb-epel) to meet the immediate need while we wait for a response to rhbz#1972979. It qualifies for an exception to the review process, so I could make that available pretty quickly.

lmdb-devel requires lmdb

$ dnf repoquery --requires --resolve lmdb-devel
lmdb-0:0.9.23-2.el8.x86_64
lmdb-libs-0:0.9.24-1.el8.x86_64
pkgconf-pkg-config-0:1.4.2-1.el8.x86_64

I think that was an error in the EPEL8 spec file. RHEL8's lmdb-devel requires lmdb-libs, not lmdb like the EPEL8 lmdb-devel did. I confirmed this by looking at the requires on the lmdb-devel buildroot package.

Fair enough.

Since there isn't alot of updates, and it's only lmdb-devel, I'm ok with option2
Though I still hope my option 1 happens.

lmdb-epel (providing an lmdb-devel subpackage) has been created, built, and submitted as an update and an override. I'm prepared to maintain this myself keeping it in sync with RHEL's spec file, but would welcome other maintainers. Hopefully RHEL accepts the request to ship lmdb-devel in CRB, in which case I'll retire lmdb-epel.

Metadata Update from @ngompa:
- Issue tagged with: epel

2 years ago

Metadata Update from @ngompa:
- Issue set to the milestone: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6

2 years ago

Metadata Update from @siosm:
- Issue tagged with: packaging

2 years ago

Metadata Update from @siosm:
- Issue untagged with: packaging

2 years ago

Metadata Update from @siosm:
- Issue tagged with: packaging

2 years ago

lmdb-devel has been added to RHEL8 CRB, but not lmdb.
But, lmdb-devel in RHEL8 requires lmdb-libs, not lmdb.
We have reviewed everything in epel and found that there is nothing that requires lmdb directly. Everything only needed lmdb-devel. So it is ok that lmdb is not available.

This is now resolved. Thank you to everyone who worked on this.

Metadata Update from @tdawson:
- Issue close_status updated to: Fixed
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

2 years ago

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata
Boards 1
Packaging Status: Done