[EPEL-devel] Re: Fwd: [Bug 1647181] Cinnamon missing deps in 7.6
Pat, I sent the link to the patch that removed support :-( El 7/11/18 a las 11:16, Pat Riehecky escribió: These days cinnamon is my preferred desktop. Thanks for the patch! Any chance for an epel-testing package? Pat On 11/6/18 3:29 PM, Pablo Sebastián Greco wrote: Missing link in previous email https://src.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/cinnamon.git/commit/?id=cfb06e44527f6d4fd6be1ef138ee29eb277e62fd El 6/11/18 a las 17:27, Pablo Sebastián Greco escribió: Here's the removal patch. It would be good to know if the reason is technical or personal, to see if we can come up with a solution. Pablo. El 6/11/18 a las 17:00, Pat Riehecky escribió: Looks like cinnamon needs some work for RHEL 7.6 and someone to do it... Pat Forwarded Message Subject:[Bug 1647181] Cinnamon missing deps in 7.6 Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 19:57:06 + From: bugzi...@redhat.com leigh scott changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2018-11-06 14:57:06 --- Comment #1 from leigh scott --- I no longer support RHEL. -- You are receiving this mail because: You reported the bug. ___ epel-devel mailing list --epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email toepel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines:https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives:https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ epel-devel mailing list --epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email toepel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines:https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives:https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ epel-devel mailing list --epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email toepel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__getfedora.org_code-2Dof-2Dconduct.html=DwIGaQ=gRgGjJ3BkIsb5y6s49QqsA=OAMtP0DWou0nlXG7Kmxo2enjXJfwb1DXS9fwcaESuTE=ADuEvg2zWAATpb--cXRksLOy2RrG-iR0ZwQ5YpMPzqo=MUjfeiCKVPTm-7pjALvJ4GZs2dpQLbtorVN4b7IQ7ZU= List Guidelines:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__fedoraproject.org_wiki_Mailing-5Flist-5Fguidelines=DwIGaQ=gRgGjJ3BkIsb5y6s49QqsA=OAMtP0DWou0nlXG7Kmxo2enjXJfwb1DXS9fwcaESuTE=ADuEvg2zWAATpb--cXRksLOy2RrG-iR0ZwQ5YpMPzqo=NcSb9OilgZw6mrAVAKnwdaNZAB_wM5_2dRHAZH3EKXA= List Archives:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.fedoraproject.org_archives_list_epel-2Ddevel-40lists.fedoraproject.org=DwIGaQ=gRgGjJ3BkIsb5y6s49QqsA=OAMtP0DWou0nlXG7Kmxo2enjXJfwb1DXS9fwcaESuTE=ADuEvg2zWAATpb--cXRksLOy2RrG-iR0ZwQ5YpMPzqo=-cs3vcV8GZFJQ7J_5Q_DWB8DBZ5jsbhcgpvkcVEx9k0= -- Pat Riehecky Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory www.fnal.gov www.scientificlinux.org ___ 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://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ 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://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
[EPEL-devel] Re: Fwd: [Bug 1647181] Cinnamon missing deps in 7.6
Missing link in previous email https://src.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/cinnamon.git/commit/?id=cfb06e44527f6d4fd6be1ef138ee29eb277e62fd El 6/11/18 a las 17:27, Pablo Sebastián Greco escribió: Here's the removal patch. It would be good to know if the reason is technical or personal, to see if we can come up with a solution. Pablo. El 6/11/18 a las 17:00, Pat Riehecky escribió: Looks like cinnamon needs some work for RHEL 7.6 and someone to do it... Pat Forwarded Message Subject:[Bug 1647181] Cinnamon missing deps in 7.6 Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 19:57:06 + From: bugzi...@redhat.com leigh scott changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2018-11-06 14:57:06 --- Comment #1 from leigh scott --- I no longer support RHEL. -- You are receiving this mail because: You reported the bug. ___ epel-devel mailing list --epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email toepel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines:https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives:https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ 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://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ 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://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
[EPEL-devel] Re: Fwd: [Bug 1647181] Cinnamon missing deps in 7.6
Here's the removal patch. It would be good to know if the reason is technical or personal, to see if we can come up with a solution. Pablo. El 6/11/18 a las 17:00, Pat Riehecky escribió: Looks like cinnamon needs some work for RHEL 7.6 and someone to do it... Pat Forwarded Message Subject:[Bug 1647181] Cinnamon missing deps in 7.6 Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 19:57:06 + From: bugzi...@redhat.com leigh scott changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2018-11-06 14:57:06 --- Comment #1 from leigh scott --- I no longer support RHEL. -- You are receiving this mail because: You reported the bug. ___ 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://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ 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://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
[EPEL-devel] Re: Pidgin on EPEL8
El 7/8/19 a las 12:30, Stephen John Smoogen escribió:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 10:52, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
mailto:de...@lists.fedoraproject.org>>
wrote:
Hello all.
While building my Fedora packages for EPEL8, got a very strange
error on
aarch64 and s390x architectures:
No matching package to install: 'pkgconfig(pidgin)'
But it builds fine with the same SPEC on x86_64 and ppc64le.
OK so it turns out that RHEL-8 is NOT 1:1 across platforms. For some
reason desktop is only on x86_64 and ppc64le and s390/aarch64 are a
more limited set of packages. I don't know if this was the case with
the beta's and I missed it or if this was something done between the
beta and the final.
At this point, i am going to say that ExclusiveArch:x86_64,ppc64le
will be needed for most desktop/graphical utilities.
Smooge, can we ask to add %{arm} to those ExclusiveArch?
O in fact, go the ExcludeArch route?
That will do my armhfp rebuild much simpler.
Affected builds:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1348098
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1348097
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org
)
___
devel mailing list -- de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
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/de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
Pablo.
___
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
[EPEL-devel] Re: Missing python-rpm-macros>3.30 on EPEL7 ppc64le
El 9/8/19 a las 07:08, Miro Hrončok escribió: On 09. 08. 19 11:13, Antonio Trande wrote: Hi all. 'python-devel-2.7.5-86.el7' requires 'python(2)-rpm-macros > 3-30' on EPEL7 ppc64le only? https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=36879492=DEFAULT=root.log=-4000 It does it on all architectures. This looks like the RHEL 7.7 version of the package. python(2)-rpm-macros 3-32 should be there as well. Is it possible that you have caught the builders mid updating? Such as the ppc64le packages were updated to 7.7 but the noarch packages were not yet? I think that what is happening is that koji is ignoring the RHEL version. The last python-rpm-macros built in koji for epel, is 3.25, and this one has priority over 3.32 imported from RHEL 7.7 (locally built is more important than external, no matter the version). This package needs to be retired from EPEL so it can pick up the RHEL version, which is also mandatory due to EPEL guidelines. Pablo. ___ 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
[EPEL-devel] Re: Proposed official change to EPEL guidelines: modules and RHEL
On 18/2/20 21:06, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 05:17:01PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 03:04:17PM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: This is what I was trying to get to in the thread recently about libssh2. However it's still not entirely clear to me. Does this mean if there's a package foo that is a rhel package, but not in a module, that it can be overlapped with a foo package thats in a epel non default module? ie, does it only mean the modular case or does it mean any rpm? I don't understand the last sentence. To the first question: yes, and that non-default module package will only get installed if the module is explicitly enabled. Consider: 1. foo rpm that is in the RHEL baseos. It's not in any module. Can epel make a foo (non default) module that overrides it? 2. foo rpm that is in a RHEL default module. Can epel make a foo (non default) module that overrides it? 3. foo rpm that is in a RHEL non default module. Can epel make a foo (non default) module that overrides it? I think we all agree 3 is fine. I think 2 could cause problems, but perhaps it would work. I would think 1 would be fine also. Kevin, I think 1 is a problem, because IIRC, if a package is part of a module, its non-modular version is automatically hidden. kevin Pablo. ___ 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
[EPEL-devel] Re: epel7 aarch64 repos options
On 8/1/20 18:38, Kevin Fenzi wrote: Greetings. As you all should know, we stopped doing aarch64 epel7 builds a while back, because rhel7.6 stopped supporting it, and thus there was no way to keep going on with it. However, we still have the epel7/aarch64 repos on our mirrors, just static with the last content that was there: https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/7/aarch64/ https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/testing/7/aarch64/ Do we have any metrics on usage? Like what we had for the ppc64 retirement? Should we do something here? Options include: 1. Nothing, just leave them there and from time to time people will ask why the new thing isn't in there and we will explain it's the old, no longer updated repo. 2. Remove the repo and replace it with a empty one, but leave it in mirrormanager. This will cause everyone to not get errors, but they also will see that there's nothing there and ask why not and we will explain that we stopped supporting it. 3. Remove the repo, remove the arch from mirrormanager. This would cause errors for anyone who has the repo enabled and they would ask about it, and we would tell them that it's no longer supported. 4. Some other more clever solution. Thoughts? I'm working on a rebuild for aarch64 based on CentOS, the same way is done for armhfp, and I'm hoping to have a better idea after FOSDEM. If I manage to do this, my plan would be to do option 1 until I have something working, then do a post somewhere explaining the move, and then introduce option 3, maybe around 7.8? kevin Pablo. ___ 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
[EPEL-devel] Re: Continuing playground discussion
On 21/8/20 19:06, Troy Dawson wrote: On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:52 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: On 01. 08. 20 0:13, Troy Dawson wrote: We were having a good discussion about epel8-playground in the Steering Committee meeting this week. Since we ran out of time I'd like to continue it via email. Most everyone agreed that playground is currently a bit of a mess and it's hard to explain to end users what it is for, or when to use it. It was also agreed that we need to decide on a plan of "this is what playground is for" and then work to setup/cleanup/document things. There seemed to be two main opinions of what to set the plan to. A) epel8-playground is meant for package development and testing for major changes. We stop doing the "build on both epel8 and epel8-playground", and epel8-playground packages only get built from the epel8-playground dist-git branch. B) epel8-playground is meant for future RHEL/CentOS testing, and thus everything built in epel8-playground get's built off CentOS Stream. We would continue the "build on both epel8 and epel8-playground" and this would make sure packages would be able to build on the newer RHEL. Both of these plans would require epel8-playground cleanup, and re-implementation. Both would require work. But the work would be quite different with the different plans. So until we decide which way to go, we don't know what to do. Thoughts on which plan to choose? Or if there is something different? Whatever you do, please get rid of the package.cfg file. It is very confusing and very annoying. See for example https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/de...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/P2Z7WDHN567XD5PCLDJ2U63WA2ECUWD2/ C) Drop playground. Say it was an interesting experiment and we learned stuff, but shut it down. (and clean up the package.cfg files as part of shutting it down) D) 1 - Manual builds only. No package.cfg files. No automatic builds. 2 - Assume playground depends on epel8. 3 - Use CentOS 8 Stream to build against. I am leaning towards option D. We've already got all the playground infrastructure setup. I don't want to waste that. So, although I said option C in the meeting, that doesn't mean I want it, I was just stating it was an option. I like option D too, looks like a more polished version of option B I'd like to get this decided by the end of August so we can start working on whichever steps we need to take. And, above all, there is one step we didn't say, but it applied to all Step 0 - Document it. Whatever we do, we need to start by documenting it, agreeing on that, and then do the work to make it that way. Troy Pablo ___ 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
[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL7 and ARM
On 7/4/21 14:45, Nick Howitt wrote: What is the current status of EPEL7 packages for ARM? As far as I can make out, aarch64 seems to have been frozen in 2019 when RedHad stopped the architecture support? I also thing there has never been official armhfp support but the Centos7 armhfp people provide packages unoficially. Is that correct? You're correct on both counts. When RH deprecated 7 for aarhc64, CentOS kept it alive, but since EPEL is built against RHEL, it had to be deactivated. WRT armhfp, those are built here https://armv7.dev.centos.org/repodir/epel-pass-1/ and I try to keep them mostly up to date with real EPEL Regards, Nick Pablo. ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL Steering Committee meeting - find a new time
Last time we did the voting in UTC, and ended up adapting it to DST in the US. Do you think we'll repeat it this time? Pablo On 19/2/21 20:54, Troy Dawson wrote: It's almost a year to the day when we last started the search for a new time for the EPEL Steering Committee meeting. I have created a new framadate poll with times extreme for both U.S. and Europe. All the times are in UTC. To see what they are in your timezone do date -d "1300 UTC" date -d "2300 UTC" Here is the link to the poll. https://framadate.org/yNIptJFnWuUR2OME Let's give it two weeks and see how we are looking then. Troy ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[EPEL-devel] Re: Won't be at weekly EPEL meeting
On 26/9/21 22:32, Troy Dawson wrote: I'm sorry for sending this via email, I should have said something at the last EPEL Steering Committee meeting. I will not be available at this weeks (Wed Sept. 29) EPEL Steering Committee meeting. Does someone else want to run the meeting? Or do we want to cancel it this week? Sorry for the delay Troy, I'm ok to cancel this week, but I could run it if necessary. Troy Pablo ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
