[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing report

2016-09-12 Thread updates
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

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 6 updates-testing report

2016-09-12 Thread updates
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

[EPEL-devel] Re: nodejs update

2016-09-12 Thread Stephen Gallagher
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

[EPEL-devel] Re: broken python2-multilib dependancy in latest koji package push for EL6

2016-09-12 Thread Mátyás Selmeci
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

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL5 man page compression

2016-09-12 Thread Richard Fearn
> 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

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL5 man page compression

2016-09-12 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III
> "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

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL5 man page compression

2016-09-12 Thread Richard Fearn
> 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

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL5 man page compression

2016-09-12 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III
> "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

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 5 updates-testing report

2016-09-12 Thread updates
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