On 7/4/21 14:45, Nick Howitt wrote:
What is the current status of EPEL7 packages for ARM? As far as I can
make out, aarch64 seems to have been frozen in 2019 when RedHad
stopped the architecture support? I also thing there has never been
official armhfp support but the Centos7 armhfp people
On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 at 13:45, Nick Howitt wrote:
> What is the current status of EPEL7 packages for ARM? As far as I can
> make out, aarch64 seems to have been frozen in 2019 when RedHad stopped
> the architecture support? I also thing there has never been official
> armhfp support but the
What is the current status of EPEL7 packages for ARM? As far as I can
make out, aarch64 seems to have been frozen in 2019 when RedHad stopped
the architecture support? I also thing there has never been official
armhfp support but the Centos7 armhfp people provide packages
unoficially. Is that
I think it's a fine idea, but I don't personally need it and don't
have time to help.
I think redefining %__python3 to /usr/bin/python3.9 on a per-specfile
basis is fine, as long as we leave the default value
(/usr/bin/python3.6) from RHEL alone. I'm not a fan of the
%__python3_other macros, and
On 07. 04. 21 4:50, Carl George wrote:
What do you mean by support? The only thing EPEL supports (using the
term loosely) is enabling Fedora packagers to branch and build their
packages for EPEL. Any maintainer of the Fedora python3.9 package (or
any related package necessary for
