The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
554 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-1087
dokuwiki-0-0.24.20140929c.el7
316 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-dac7ed832f
mcollective-2.8.4-1.el7
79
The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
432 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7031
python-virtualenv-12.0.7-1.el6
426 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7168
rubygem-crack-0.3.2-2.el6
357
On 09/08/2016 01:27 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 08/22/2016 11:23 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>
>> OK, as we stated before, we really need to get Node.js 6.x into the
>> updates-testing repository soon. We mentioned that we wanted it to sit there
>> for
>> at least a month before we cut
On 08/10/16 12:15, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 12:57:10 -0400
"B. Karhan" wrote:
.the update koji-1.10.1-8.el6 has a require of python2-multilib which
is only added to python-multilib-1.1-5.el6 (and later), so the
parallel push of python-multilib-1.1-4.el6 does
> You also have no guarantee that files will be compressed. The scripts
> that do this behind the scenes could decide not to compress them for
> some reason.
Mmm, true. Now I re-re-read the guidelines (!) I see that "as the
build system will compress them as needed" means they may not ALWAYS
be
> "RF" == Richard Fearn writes:
RF> I'd have thought that instead of specifying "%{_mandir}/man1/foo.1*"
RF> as the guidelines suggest, it would be safer to specify
RF> "%{_mandir}/man1/foo.1.*" to ensure it doesn't accidentally pick up
RF> an uncompressed file.
You
> I will note, though, that the guidelines recommend not specifying the
> extension of the manpages in the %files section; you can't guarantee
> that gzip will always be the compression format used. That's probably
> why more packages never ran into this and why my "random sample" build
> tests
> "RF" == Richard Fearn writes:
RF> Thanks Jason for looking into this, and for your work on these
RF> macros in general. I take it you mean you were able to build the old
RF> version of the package (1.12-1) without issue?
Yes, it builds with and without a %clean
The following Fedora EPEL 5 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
823 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2014-1626
puppet-2.7.26-1.el5
672 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2014-3849
sblim-sfcb-1.3.8-2.el5
315