Skip to content

feat: Package for epel 9 #394

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 5, 2024
Merged

feat: Package for epel 9 #394

merged 1 commit into from
Aug 5, 2024

Conversation

LecrisUT
Copy link
Collaborator

@LecrisUT LecrisUT commented Jan 18, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Add packit CI for epel 9 packaging

@LecrisUT LecrisUT self-assigned this Jan 18, 2024
@LecrisUT LecrisUT force-pushed the fedora/epel-9 branch 4 times, most recently from 37039fb to fdaf11b Compare January 18, 2024 17:30
@LecrisUT
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Aw, this one is encountering the CMake < 3.24 issue with FetchContent 😟

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Jan 18, 2024 •
edited by codecov bot
Loading

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 83.90%. Comparing base (1f2f37a) to head (7f309f3).
Report is 16 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files 
@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop     #394   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    83.90%   83.90%           
========================================
  Files           25       25           
  Lines         8185     8185           
  Branches      1701     1700    -1     
========================================
  Hits          6868     6868           
  Misses        1317     1317
Flag Coverage Δ
c_api 74.78% <ø> (ø)
fortran_api 56.19% <ø> (ø)
python_api 80.36% <ø> (ø)
unit_tests 13.47% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@LecrisUT LecrisUT added this to the 2.4 milestone Jan 25, 2024
@LecrisUT
Copy link
Collaborator Author

LecrisUT commented Feb 5, 2024 •
edited
Loading

/packit build

@LecrisUT LecrisUT force-pushed the fedora/epel-9 branch 5 times, most recently from ea450e1 to 746acc4 Compare February 12, 2024 15:25
@LecrisUT LecrisUT force-pushed the fedora/epel-9 branch 4 times, most recently from e4b8801 to 382cefe Compare February 14, 2024 10:07
@LecrisUT
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Interesting, centos-stream is packaging CMake 3.26 and Fedora just added a new branch where we can package for centos-stream base. I think we can bump the minimum CMake requirement a bit higher to 3.25 based on Debian 12, Ubuntu 24.04, EPEL9-Next 1

Footnotes

  1. https://pkgs.org/search/?q=cmake ↩

@spglib spglib deleted a comment from packit-as-a-service bot Feb 14, 2024
@spglib spglib deleted a comment from packit-as-a-service bot Feb 14, 2024
@spglib spglib deleted a comment from packit-as-a-service bot Feb 14, 2024
@LecrisUT LecrisUT modified the milestones: 2.4, 2.5 Feb 15, 2024
@LecrisUT LecrisUT mentioned this pull request Mar 27, 2024
Merged
@LecrisUT LecrisUT modified the milestones: 2.5, 2.6 Jul 2, 2024
@LecrisUT LecrisUT marked this pull request as ready for review July 2, 2024 16:53
@LecrisUT LecrisUT mentioned this pull request Jul 8, 2024
Merged
@LecrisUT LecrisUT force-pushed the fedora/epel-9 branch 2 times, most recently from c350f1d to 9a0ec46 Compare July 8, 2024 12:41
@LecrisUT
Package for epel-9
7f309f3 
Signed-off-by: Cristian Le <cristian.le@mpsd.mpg.de>
@LecrisUT LecrisUT assigned lan496 and unassigned LecrisUT Aug 4, 2024
@lan496 lan496 merged commit 9cdeac6 into spglib:develop Aug 5, 2024
55 checks passed
@LecrisUT LecrisUT deleted the fedora/epel-9 branch August 12, 2024 11:20
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@lan496 lan496 lan496 approved these changes

Assignees

@lan496 lan496

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
2.6
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@LecrisUT @codecov-commenter @lan496