The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing
clamav-0.101.4-1.el8
libunwind-1.3.1-3.el8
perl-CPAN-Changes-0.42-13.el8
perl-Expect-1.35-10.el8
perl-HTTP-Headers-Fast-0.22-3.el8
perl-Mixin-Linewise-0.108-15.el8
perl-Net-IP-1.26-20.el8
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
374 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-3c9292b62d
condor-8.6.11-1.el7
149 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-d2c1368294
cinnamon-3.6.7-5.el7
115
On 8/23/19 10:56 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> As you know, we delayed support of Modularity in EPEL (called
> Application Streams in RHEL) until 8.1 while we worked out some
> remaining issues. Some of those issues were technical, but we have a
> few others that will come down to policy. In
As you know, we delayed support of Modularity in EPEL (called
Application Streams in RHEL) until 8.1 while we worked out some
remaining issues. Some of those issues were technical, but we have a
few others that will come down to policy. In particular, EPEL has to
deal with something Fedora does
On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 11:03, Paul Howarth wrote:
>
> The EL-8 non-default repo Code Ready Builder is primarily targeted at
> developers, but it looks to me like it's going to be a required repo
> for a lot of EPEL-8 users, particularly those using interpreted
> languages.
>
> As an example,
The EL-8 non-default repo Code Ready Builder is primarily targeted at
developers, but it looks to me like it's going to be a required repo
for a lot of EPEL-8 users, particularly those using interpreted
languages.
As an example, today I built perl-Expect for EPEL-8
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 9:43 AM Petr Pisar wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 08:26:32AM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 06:52, Petr Pisar wrote:
> > > Case: RHEL delivers a non-modular P package. There is no S stream of
> > > a M module. Can I add a new M module
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 6:52 AM Petr Pisar wrote:
> If I read the EPEL 8 annoucement correctly, it's still not possible to
> build
> modules in EPEL. Nevertheless I'd like to know how the rules about "not
> replacing RHEL content" will apply to modules. Here are my question:
>
> Case: RHEL
Once upon a time, Stephen John Smoogen said:
> Honestly I don't understand the solution (and probably the problem)
> enough to answer. My understanding of modules is about the same as a
> layman's knowledge of quantum mechanics. I know it exists, I know it
> does a lot of things, and I know it is
On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 09:43, Petr Pisar wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 08:26:32AM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 06:52, Petr Pisar wrote:
> > > Case: RHEL delivers a non-modular P package. There is no S stream of
> > > a M module. Can I add a new M module with
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 08:26:32AM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 06:52, Petr Pisar wrote:
> > Case: RHEL delivers a non-modular P package. There is no S stream of
> > a M module. Can I add a new M module with a new S stream that will contain
> > a modular P package?
The following answers are just my opinions and not policy.
On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 06:52, Petr Pisar wrote:
>
> If I read the EPEL 8 annoucement correctly, it's still not possible to build
> modules in EPEL. Nevertheless I'd like to know how the rules about "not
> replacing RHEL content" will
If I read the EPEL 8 annoucement correctly, it's still not possible to build
modules in EPEL. Nevertheless I'd like to know how the rules about "not
replacing RHEL content" will apply to modules. Here are my question:
Case: RHEL delivers an M module with a default S1 stream. There is no S2
13 matches
Mail list logo
