On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 08:45:30PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
EPEL-only packages should have their devel branch (and any other Fedora
branches if they were already created) properly retired including adding the
dead.package file. It can say something like EPEL-only package.
EPEL-only
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 08:45:30PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
EPEL-only packages should have their devel branch (and any other Fedora
branches if they were already created) properly retired including adding the
Dne 21.8.2015 v 19:48 Viktor Jancik napsal(a):
Using an automated script I found 65 repositories that neither have a spec
file or a dead.package among Fedora package repositories on the master branch.
Is this desired? Here is the list:
rubygem-amq-protocol
This was never imported.
Dne 21.8.2015 v 19:48 Viktor Jancik napsal(a):
Using an automated script I found 65 repositories that neither have a spec
file or a dead.package among Fedora package repositories on the master branch.
Is this desired? Here is the list:
rubygem-amq-protocol
Package was probably never
Hi
On 08/21/2015 07:48 PM, Viktor Jancik wrote:
Using an automated script I found 65 repositories that neither have a spec file
or a dead.package among Fedora package repositories on the master branch.
Is this desired? Here is the list:
askbot-plugin-authfas
autoconf268
bwping
Django14
Using an automated script I found 65 repositories that neither have a spec file
or a dead.package among Fedora package repositories on the master branch.
Is this desired? Here is the list:
askbot-plugin-authfas
autoconf268
bwping
Django14
drupal7-honeypot
drupal7-xmlsitemap
fetch-crl3
gnuplot44
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:48:44 -0400 (EDT), Viktor Jancik wrote:
Using an automated script I found 65 repositories that neither have a spec
file or a dead.package among Fedora package repositories on the master branch.
Is this desired? Here is the list:
[...]
I came to the conclusion, that
Rex Dieter wrote:
At least some of these are epel-only packages (examples below)
dead.package I thought was only applicable to packages that existed in
fedora, then were EOL'd. Should that case be handled differently?
EPEL-only packages should have their devel branch (and any other Fedora
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:02:41 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
dead.package I thought was only applicable to packages that existed in
fedora, then were EOL'd. Should that case be handled differently?
It prevents new branches from being created.
Will there be more empty branches in the future, if the
Viktor Jancik wrote:
Using an automated script I found 65 repositories that neither have a spec
file or a dead.package among Fedora package repositories on the master
branch.
At least some of these are epel-only packages (examples below)
dead.package I thought was only applicable to
10 matches
Mail list logo