#10025 Unretire rpms/python-aexpect and rpms/python-avocado
Closed: Fixed a month ago by humaton. Opened 5 months ago by merlinm.

  • Describe the issue

I would like to bring back non-modular versions of the python-aexpect and python-avocado packages since modular-only packages are no longer allowed. However, the rawhide branches for both of these packages have EOL dates in the past so pagure blocks any pushes to the rawhide branches to be able to bring the packages back.

I would also like to make non-modular packages available for F34 and F33. However, those branches are missing.

Please update the EOL dates for the rawhide branches of the python-aexpect and python-avocado packages to appropriate "distant future" EOL dates.

Also please create the f34 and f33 branches for both packages with proper EOL dates.

  • When do you need this? (YYYY/MM/DD)

2021/02/24

  • When is this no longer needed or useful? (YYYY/MM/DD)

  • If we cannot complete your request, what is the impact?

No one is able to make the dist-git commits necessary to bring back the non-modular packages as required by current policy.


In technical terms, the packages are retired on rawhide. So we need them unretired. Once they are unretired, you will be able to request the missing branches via fedpkg request-branch.

The packages are retired for more then 8 weeks (for 2 years), so technically, they need a new Review Request (because there is no exception for this case). We could either ask FPC or FESCo for an exception or policy change or I can review the packages for you if you don't want to deal with committees.

Metadata Update from @humaton:
- Issue tagged with: low-gain, low-trouble, ops

5 months ago

In technical terms, the packages are retired on rawhide. So we need them unretired. Once they are unretired, you will be able to request the missing branches via fedpkg request-branch.

The packages are retired for more then 8 weeks (for 2 years), so technically, they need a new Review Request (because there is no exception for this case). We could either ask FPC or FESCo for an exception or policy change or I can review the packages for you if you don't want to deal with committees.

Yeah. This is a weird corner case. They packages never went away, never stopped being maintained, and never went without an owner. They just went fully modular.

A fresh package review is probably the best way to get out of the corner. Thank you for the offer to review. Someone will post an update here when it's ready.

Oh, and an f32 branch should also get created for the packages. But it sounds like that can be done later with fedpkg request-branch once rawhide is out of limbo.

A fresh package review is probably the best way to get out of the corner. Thank you for the offer to review. Someone will post an update here when it's ready.

@churchyard If your offer to review these packages is still open, I just submitted review requests: BZ1930948 - python-avocado and BZ1930954 - python-aexpect. Thank you!

I won't get to it today. Mostl likely tomorrow or early next week.

They packages never went away, never stopped being maintained, and never went without an owner. They just went fully modular.

FWIW, I think it's good to do a re-review. Mostly for deps and conformance to latest packaging style. If we had many such packages, I think it'd be worth reconsidering, but since it's just two, it's less hassle to re-review them rather then try to figure out the details of the needed exception and updates to the releng process.

Thank you for filing the re-review requests.

The package reviews for BZ1930948 - python-avocado and BZ1930954 - python-aexpect have now both been approved. Please unretire them on rawhide so the non-modular versions can be brought back. Thank you!

I just updated the description of this issue to accurately reflect the task that needs to be done. The necessary package reviews have been completed and approved. (See previous comment.)

Is there an ETA when this can be completed?

Thank you!

Sorry, this got lost in the tracker.
The packages are now unretired. For missing branches please use $fedpkg request-branch

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

a month ago

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata
Boards 1
Ops Status: Backlog