Message-ID: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc-3591-c2805280882@github.com>
From: "praiskup (@praiskup)" <noreply+praiskup@github.com>
To: "pgjdbc/pgjdbc" <noreply+pgjdbc-pgjdbc@github.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:10:56 +0000
Subject: Re: [pgjdbc/pgjdbc] issue #3591: The Fedora CI seems to fail
In-Reply-To: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc-3591@github.com>
References: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc-3591@github.com>
List-Id: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc.github.com>
X-GitHub-Author-Login: praiskup
X-GitHub-Comment-Id: 2805280882
X-GitHub-Comment-Type: issue_comment
X-GitHub-Edited-At: 2025-04-15T14:11:17Z
X-GitHub-Issue: 3591
X-GitHub-Repo: pgjdbc/pgjdbc
X-GitHub-Type: comment
X-GitHub-Url: https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/issues/3591#issuecomment-2805280882
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

> From my view the best solution would be to refer to actual Fedora .spec files for each version of Fedora.

:shrug: this used to work just fine for us (downstream) & upstream back then when I was part of the maintenance team @ Fedora.  But feel free to fix the CI the way you prefer.  Or we can drop it, if you do not need it.

Just note that it is rather long-shot for upstream contributors to fix Fedora spec files just to make the upstream CI green (IOW, if we use one spec file from Fedora centrally - upstream contributors can not fix problems they are causing).

> In the template file I already see some relicts of ancient times and I am surprised other errors were not shown.

Yes, there used to be very verbose comment both sides trying to inform the future maintainers that these files should stay in sync.