The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
598 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-3c9292b62d
condor-8.6.11-1.el7
340 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-c499781e80
python-gnupg-0.4.4-1.el7
338
EPEL Issue #101 [1] has pointed out that our current policy for
stalled EPEL requests is fairly in-efficient and can cause some long
delays.
What do people think the process should be?
Here is an example:
* A packager opens a bugzilla requesting a package be added to EPEL.
They also express that
RHEL 8.2 will have a newer qt5 (qt5-5.12.5).
They have also cleaned up their qt5-srpm-macros, to remove a macro for
a package they do not support, nor plan on supporting. I have
verified this was their intention and they do not plan on putting it
back.
%qt5_qtwebengine_arches %{ix86} x86_64
The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
13 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-9190462510
ckeditor-4.14.0-1.el6
10 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-0c0d9690e1
drupal6-6.38-3.el6
The following builds have been
It is true that probably it's not worth the effort. Thank you anyway
El sáb., 21 mar. 2020 a las 18:33, Troy Dawson ()
escribió:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 4:40 AM Sergio Pascual
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello. I would like to update cfitsio in epel6. The current version here
> has longstanding bugs.
>
A couple things I have on the agenda to think about
* https://pagure.io/epel/issue/101 Policy for stalled EPEL requests
- Is this something that we pursue, and figure out a new/better
policy, or do we stick to the past way of doing it.
* With the -devel stuff in place, as we go through the
