[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 6 updates-testing report
The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 6 updates-testing convert2rhel-0.12-1.el6 Details about builds: convert2rhel-0.12-1.el6 (FEDORA-EPEL-2020-d0a4bcf7f1) Automates the conversion of RHEL derivative distributions to RHEL Update Information: - require --enablerepo with --disable-submgr - fix failing conversions if gpgcheck=1 not in used custom repos - always logging debug info to the log file - unnecessary backup of kernel packages is not being performed - add missing python-setuptools dependency on RHEL 6 to a spec file - unregister from RHN Classic if in use - change a temporary folder path from /tmp/convert2rhel/ to /var/lib/convert2rhel - add the ability to specify custom RHSM URL - unsubscribe from RHSM during a rollback - drop the support for conversions of RHEL 5 - make sure that RHEL kernel has been installed correctly during the conversion - fix parsing RHSM output due to its change in RHEL 7.8 - fix stopping the convert2rhel execution when not running as root - the convert2rhel.log file is not being overwritten but appended - do not traceback when intentionally stopping the conversion - do not ask for subscription SKU pool IDs when activation key is used ChangeLog: * Wed Aug 19 2020 Michal Bocek 0.12-1 - require --enablerepo with --disable-submgr - fix failing conversions if gpgcheck=1 not in used custom repos - always logging debug info to the log file - unnecessary backup of kernel packages is not being performed - add missing python-setuptools dependency on RHEL 6 to a spec file - unregister from RHN Classic if in use - change a temporary folder path from /tmp/convert2rhel/ to /var/lib/convert2rhel - add the ability to specify custom RHSM URL - unsubscribe from RHSM during a rollback - drop the support for conversions of RHEL 5 - make sure that RHEL kernel has been installed correctly during the conversion - fix parsing RHSM output due to its change in RHEL 7.8 - fix stopping the convert2rhel execution when not running as root - the convert2rhel.log file is not being overwritten but appended - do not traceback when intentionally stopping the conversion - do not ask for subscription SKU pool IDs when activation key is used * Tue May 12 2020 Michal Bocek 0.11-1 - updated license in spec files from GPLv3 to GPLv3+ - set up automated pylint and unit test coverage checks in GitHub - removed packit smoke test - fixed packit configuration for downstream release proposals * Wed May 6 2020 Michal Bocek 0.10-1 - fixed rpm dependencies - blacklisted kmod-kvdo causing a transaction failure on CentOS 7 - convert2rhel exits with 0 on a help message - added packit configuration for Copr builds and unit testing on a PR References: [ 1 ] Bug #1830769 - convert2rhel fails hard when GPG key is not imported https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830769 [ 2 ] Bug #1830772 - logfile is overwritten instead of appended https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830772 [ 3 ] Bug #1831093 - No more kernel installed and script stopped with failure https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1831093 ___ 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 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/ -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ 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
