On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 11:54:41 PM CDT Peter Robinson wrote:
> >> I'm looking for some clarification on the naming requirements for
> >> SRPMs.
> >>
> >> In the EPEL 7 in Python 3 Plan Draft [1], it specifies that SRPM names
> >> can't conflict with RHEL SRPM names, but in the Limited
On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 5:35:29 PM CDT Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 14:13:44 -0400
> >
> > Avram Lubkin wrote:
> >> I'm looking for some clarification on the naming requirements for
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
555 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-1087
dokuwiki-0-0.24.20140929c.el7
317 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-dac7ed832f
mcollective-2.8.4-1.el7
80
The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
433 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7031
python-virtualenv-12.0.7-1.el6
427 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7168
rubygem-crack-0.3.2-2.el6
358
On 13 September 2016 at 17:14, Avram Lubkin wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Stephen John Smoogen
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> The reasoning for needing a python3-foobaz is that we don't replace
>> the python2 version of foobaz with a package which does not
>> I'm looking for some clarification on the naming requirements for
>> SRPMs.
>>
>> In the EPEL 7 in Python 3 Plan Draft [1], it specifies that SRPM names
>> can't conflict with RHEL SRPM names, but in the Limited Arch Packages
>> [2]section of EPEL: Packaging, it seems to imply the SRPM name
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 14:13:44 -0400
> Avram Lubkin wrote:
>
>> I'm looking for some clarification on the naming requirements for
>> SRPMs.
>>
>> In the EPEL 7 in Python 3 Plan Draft [1], it specifies that
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 14:13:44 -0400
Avram Lubkin wrote:
> I'm looking for some clarification on the naming requirements for
> SRPMs.
>
> In the EPEL 7 in Python 3 Plan Draft [1], it specifies that SRPM names
> can't conflict with RHEL SRPM names, but in the Limited Arch
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Avram Lubkin wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Stephen John Smoogen
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> The reasoning for needing a python3-foobaz is that we don't replace
>> the python2 version of foobaz with a package which does
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Stephen John Smoogen
wrote:
>
> The reasoning for needing a python3-foobaz is that we don't replace
> the python2 version of foobaz with a package which does not work at
> all with the python2 installed and possibly breaks an existing app.
>
On 09/13/2016 01:28 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 13 September 2016 at 14:13, Avram Lubkin wrote:
>> I'm looking for some clarification on the naming requirements for SRPMs.
>>
>> In the EPEL 7 in Python 3 Plan Draft [1], it specifies that SRPM names can't
>>
On 13 September 2016 at 14:13, Avram Lubkin wrote:
> I'm looking for some clarification on the naming requirements for SRPMs.
>
> In the EPEL 7 in Python 3 Plan Draft [1], it specifies that SRPM names can't
> conflict with RHEL SRPM names, but in the Limited Arch Packages
I'm looking for some clarification on the naming requirements for SRPMs.
In the EPEL 7 in Python 3 Plan Draft [1], it specifies that SRPM names
can't conflict with RHEL SRPM names, but in the Limited Arch Packages
[2]section of EPEL: Packaging, it seems to imply the SRPM name would be the
same,
Dear all,
You are kindly invited to the meeting:
EPSCO meeting on 2016-09-14 from 18:00:00 to 19:00:00 GMT
At fedora-meet...@irc.freenode.net
The meeting will be about:
Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux Steering COmmittee (EPSCO) has a weekly
meeting to go over concerns and problems in
On 09/13/2016 08:28 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> Due to upstream terminating support for 0.10.x on 2016-10-01, we *will* be
>> cutting over to 6.x on or around that date, so this testing request is
>> time-sensitive.
I'm wondering if it might not be prudent to put something in fedora
Apologies for the re-send, but I typoed the epel-devel email address on the
first try.
On 09/13/2016 09:27 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Yesterday, I built the latest upstream version of Node.js for EPEL 7 (this
> version will be supported until 2019-04-01)
>
> I have added it to the buildroot
16 matches
Mail list logo