The reason why I want to bring arm-none-eabi-gdb back to live is, that the version published by ARM is built against python 3.8. That is cumbersome to handle.
Fedora does not provide gdb-multiarch neither.

I found at least three active projects on copr addressing the same point:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/lihis/arm-none-eabi-gdb/
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/rleh/arm-none-eabi-gdb/
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/alwaysrookie/arm-none-eabi-gdb/

Hey @reanimator

This package was retired a long while back from what I can tell.

it will need a new review (anything retired longer than 6 weeks ago needs a new review)
Can you submit your package for review?

Hey @reanimator

This package was retired a long while back from what I can tell.

it will need a new review (anything retired longer than 6 weeks ago needs a new review)
Can you submit your package for review?

Thanks for your attention!
Sorry, I missed your reply. I have discovered it just now.

Since it is my first fedora package, I am not confident how to proceed here:

Should I simply create a bug report on Bugzilla like this one:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062623

or do I need to run fedpkg request-repo --exception arm-none-eabi-gdb?

According to the documentation, I must be a contributor (member of packager group) in order to do this.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Review_Process/
If you are not member of the packager group, you need a sponsor. Add FE-NEEDSPONSOR to the bugs being blocked by your review request. For more information read How to Get Sponsored into the Packager Group.

Should I simply create a bug report on Bugzilla like this one:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062623

Yes, and specifically, you should follow the steps in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Review_Process/#_contributor.

or do I need to run fedpkg request-repo --exception arm-none-eabi-gdb?

No, this is not one of the cases that are exempt from package review (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Review_Process/#exemptions, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Package_review_policy/#what, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/#_package_review_process).

According to the documentation, I must be a contributor (member of packager group) in order to do this.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Review_Process/
If you are not member of the packager group, you need a sponsor. Add FE-NEEDSPONSOR to the bugs being blocked by your review request. For more information read How to Get Sponsored into the Packager Group.

It didn’t say you need to be sponsored in order to have the package reviewed. In fact, the referenced How to Get Sponsored into the Packager Group recommends submitting packages for review as a way of demonstrating you are ready to be sponsored. You just need to be sponsored in order to import or unretire the package after a successful review.

@music Thank you for your explanation!
Now it become clear to me.

I have opened the Review Request as requested:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2222746

here is the request to unretire the package: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/11544

Ownership request: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/BICKA5TPJW7LW5RGK2Y3CWWCXD3IU5HW/

@reanimator I saw your message on the mailing list and wanted to clarify something for myself. (Apologies if this isn't the correct medium for it.)

From my past experience while following the https://docs.rust-embedded.org/book/intro/install/linux.html, I found that gdb in Fedora works without having arm-none-eabi-gdb package. See: rust-embedded/book#249, was I somehow mistaken?

If so what advantages does arm-none-eabi-gdb bring over what we can already get from gdb in Fedora today?

Does arm-none-eabi-gdb not depend on GNU libraries like arm-linux-gnu does as enabled in https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gdb/blob/rawhide/f/gdb.spec#_709, and does that have some advantages?

@reanimator I saw your message on the mailing list and wanted to clarify something for myself. (Apologies if this isn't the correct medium for it.)

From my past experience while following the https://docs.rust-embedded.org/book/intro/install/linux.html, I found that gdb in Fedora works without having arm-none-eabi-gdb package. See: rust-embedded/book#249, was I somehow mistaken?

If so what advantages does arm-none-eabi-gdb bring over what we can already get from gdb in Fedora today?

Thanks for your input!
Actually it is a good point. I have to admit, that I did check gdb because I did not expect it to support arm-none-eabi out the box.
I have briefly tested it now, and it seems to work correctly.

Does arm-none-eabi-gdb not depend on GNU libraries like arm-linux-gnu does as enabled in https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gdb/blob/rawhide/f/gdb.spec#_709, and does that have some advantages?

arm-none-eabi-gdb does not depend on arm-linux-gnu. But this was not the reason of my request. Let me check the standard gdbversion first. Then I can confirm whether it fits the needs. If it so, then it does not make sense to support arm-none-eabi-gdb as standalone package.

@mavjs I have tested gdb 13.2-2.fc38 recently in my development environment. It works perfectly fine. So I see no reason anymore to bring arm-none-eabi-gdbback to live. I am closing this request and related issues.

@music @mavjs @kevin
Thank you folks for your time sorry for the confusion!