Learn more about these different git repos.
Other Git URLs
The client package (included in epel/fts) is "fts-client". The FTS project has moved into deprecating the clients provided by the "fts-client" package, as they are replaced by the new "fts-rest-client" package, which recently got published to EPEL. Recent versions of "fts-client" (v3.12.0+) offer a deprecation text notice.
Goal: release in EPEL the latest "fts-client" package, which comes with the deprecation notice. This will ensure the user-base is notified in advance and can switch to the new "fts-rest-client" package. This will also be the last "fts" release into EPEL as the client is replaced entirely by a new package and the server should not be installed from EPEL.
Deprecation plan: fts v3.8.4 --> fts v3.12.0 (deprecation notice shows up) --> fts-rest-client v3.12.0
When do you need this? (YYYY/MM/DD) As soon as possible (2022-09-27)
When is this no longer needed or useful? (YYYY/MM/DD) As soon as the "FTS" release makes it to EPEL.
If we cannot complete your request, what is the impact? The transition from the deprecated "fts-client" to the new "fts-rest-client" will be more intrusive.
Retiring a package in Fedora does not automatically retire it in epel. All of the epel branches (epel7 and epel8) are not retired, they are still there an usable. I believe this ticket can be closed because it is not needed.
Note: Although you use "epel" in your ticket, you are really talking about "epel7" only. epel8 did not ever build fts. epel9 only has fts-rest-client
Hello,
You are correct, I'm only interested in the "epel7" branch. The existing packages are still there, but can I push a new release of "fts" into "epel7"? The project shows up as orphaned retired.
Apologies if my questions sound too naive.
Cheers, Mihai
Edit: orphaned --> retired
No need to apologize, because it is confusing. We (the EPEL Steering Committee) are trying to figure out how to make it less confusing.
When a package is retired or orphaned in Fedora, the web pages are marked as retired or orphaned for both Fedora and EPEL, even if the EPEL package maintainer wants to continue. But it doesn't remove any of the maintainers other than the main admin, and it doesn't retire or do anything to the epel branches.
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fts Right now it shows that andreamanzi is an admin, so he can definitely update and/or build in epel7. Also, if you are a proven packager, you can also do the what needs to be done in epel7.
If you are neither of those, then you need to either ask andreamanzi, or releng for permissions. And maybe this is a good ticket to ask for the permissions.
Thank you for the information!
I realized I should've introduced myself. I am the current upstream maintainer of the FTS project, a system used to move data within the Scientific Grid world.
I'm trying to decommission the old FTS clients (fts-client RPM) and replace them with the new fts-rest-client. The new package is already published to Fedora & EPEL (thanks to ellert for guidance and review). To facilitate the transition, I want to push a new fts-client RPM which contains the deprecation notice.
fts-client
fts-rest-client
It is true I do not have a lot of experience with the Fedora packaging ecosystem. From your reply, I understand the epel7 branch is still active, so I could already use it. I am also a Fedora packager, which means the only thing left is to get permissions to the fts repository.
fts
Could I be granted permissions to the repo directly? Is it preferred I ask andreamanzi for that?
Over all, I agree that the ticket can be closed and no un-retiring is needed
Metadata Update from @phsmoura: - Issue tagged with: low-gain, low-trouble, ops
Hi @mipatras if the package is active best way is to contact the main admin and ask them for permissions on the epel branch or for a new build. If the maintainer does not respond you can invoke a stalled epel request policy[1] and we will give you commit access to the repository.
[1] - https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy/#stalled_epel_requests
Thank you all for the useful info.
I've contacted andreamanzi and have been granted access to the repo. I'll close this ticket.
Metadata Update from @mipatras: - Issue close_status updated to: It's all good - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Login to comment on this ticket.