One problem I see is: What version should the package track?

For example CentOS 8 is currently lagging a bit behind RHEL 8 but CentOS 8 CR has the newer version already. So one way or another there will be users who can not use the EPEL version and get dnf conflicts.
(I'm facing the same problem with my src.rpm, see https://github.com/FelixSchwarz/epel8-networkd/issues/1)

My plan is to track the latest systemd-networkd version in Fedora. The systemd-networkd package in this review does not have any dependency on specific systemd versions due to shared libraries etc. (like your package). In order to build a mostly statically linked systemd-networkd, I created patch https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commit/5ac8b50d58946156094f7d4e6da8eec1209d9c3a (merged upstream) which is also used in this package. Thus my package here should even work with both, CentOS 8.0 and RHEL 8.1 (or CentOS CR/Stream), while I just tried CentOS 8.0 and CR myself. So, the versions of systemd and systemd-networkd are simply de-coupled.

Spec URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/systemd-extras.spec
SRPM URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/systemd-extras-244.1-1.el8.src.rpm
Description: The systemd-extras package provides optional systemd components as sub-packages, such as systemd-networkd and systemd-timesyncd, which are not part of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 (and possibly derivates).


As stated before the plan is still to track systemd in Fedora to ensure ongoing security and bug fixes. Both components have been decoupled on library level (as of writing: patches partially accepted by upstream) from the systemd packages in RHEL/CentOS 8 so that there is no strict versioned dependency (that should even cover upcoming already RHEL 8.2 vs. still CentOS 8.1 differences).

I guess I'm taking this review... 😰

Spec URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/systemd-extras.spec
SRPM URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/systemd-extras-244.1-2.el8.src.rpm

The updated package contains a patch to make the package build succeeding in local mock rather only in the Fedora buildsystem, however it's an upstream issue (and reported there already).

Any updates on this? It would be great to have systemd-networkd available in EPEL.

Neal, do you have any preliminary feedback for us regarding the review? For me, the package works here since begin of January...

Review notes:

* Package is named somewhat appropriately. It's essentially a fictitious source package to not conflict with the real one in RHEL 8, so that's fine.
* The licensing matches up with the main package it was split from (systemd)
* The package builds and installs successfully
* There are no notable issues from rpmlint beyond what's always been there from systemd
* Packaging generally follows Fedora/EPEL packaging guidelines

There's only a minor issue that you can resolve on import: "%{_localstatedir}/lib" should just be "%{_sharedstatedir}".

Otherwise looks good to me. 😵

PACKAGE APPROVED.

Neal, thank you really very much for the review!

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/systemd-extras

FEDORA-EPEL-2020-3fda065940 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-3fda065940

systemd-extras-244.1-2.el8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-3fda065940

systemd-extras-244.1-2.el8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.