On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 7:20 PM Lance Albertson <la...@osuosl.org> wrote: > > We just noticed something rather odd while working on adding EL10 support to > our infrastructure. > > Previously, we had tested and verified that we could install > nagios-plugins-http, but today that's no longer the case if you're on > AlmaLinux 10 pointed at the 10.0 EPEL repo.
How did you previously set up EPEL? nagios-plugins has only been built in EPEL 10.1, so RHEL 10.0 and Alma 10.0 systems shouldn't see it available. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?search=&packages=nagios-plugins&releases=EPEL-10.0&releases=EPEL-10.1&releases=EPEL-10 If you're using a custom repo definition, it needs to match to commented out baseurl examples in the official epel-release to ensure you get packages targeting the appropriate minor version. If you were previously able to install nagios-plugins-http with your repo setup, that sounds like it was misconfigured to use 10.1 (pub/10) instead of 10.0 (pub/10z) https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-release/blob/epel10/f/epel.repo See the EPEL docs on branches for additional details. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/branches/ You can also read this issue for more background on why the repos are constructed the way they are. https://pagure.io/epel/issue/324 > > I did some digging and noticed that the package doesn't seem to have the > epel10.0 tag listed in koji [1]. However, I do see a lot of other packages > that include 10.0, 10.1 and 10.2 [2]. neovim-0.10.1-4.el10_0 was built for 10.0 (hence the el10_0 dist tag), and then tagged forward to 10.1 and 10.2 during the respective mass branching events. > > Is this intentional or was there a mistake made somewhere and it had 10.0 > removed? > > The reason we're pointing directly at 10.0 is due to some issues we ran into > with clamav linking against newer openssl libraries using the 10.1 branch. I > would expect packages that were in 10.0 to remain, but is that not the case > anymore? Indeed, clamav in EPEL 10.1 is built against openssl 3.5.1, but in EPEL 10.0 is built against openssl 3.2.2. Subtle differences like this are why we have minor versions in EPEL now. > > Thanks- > > [1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=2594 > [2] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2540722 > > -- > Lance Albertson > Director > Oregon State University | Open Source Lab > -- > _______________________________________________ > epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Do not reply to spam, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue -- Carl George -- _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
