://github.com/certbot/certbot/releases
Interestingly Ubuntu 23.10 is still on certbot 2.1.0 !
However certbot 2.9.0 is in Debian testing, so I expect that
the next LTS Ubuntu (24.04, Noble) will also have 2.9.0.
--
Andrew C. Aitchison Kendal, UK
.
ChangeLog:
* Wed Jan 10 2024 Michel Lind - 0.3.0-1
- Initial package
--
Andrew C. Aitchison Kendal, UK
Collection
High CVE-2023-6112, use after free in Navigation
- add Requires/Conflicts for ABI break in fmpeg-free 6.0.1
... ......
So it does look like an intentional, but needed, incompatability :-(
--
Andrew C. Aitchison Kendal, UK
,
especially config locations and defaults may be different.
Thanks,
--
Andrew C. Aitchison Kendal, UK
and...@aitchison.me.uk
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email
oes and everyone knows why it went.
Should tox3 and tox4 *provide* tox ?
--
Andrew C. Aitchison Kendal, UK
and...@aitchison.me.uk___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe s
interesting", as the ClamAV RPM and
Docker image both bundle updated versions of zlib and libxml.
Nick, are you in a position to test either the ClamAV RPM or Docker packages
on EL7 ? If the Docker works, you could run clamdscan on the main machine
connecting to the Docker clamd server.
--
And
making non-conflicting changes.
--
Andrew C. Aitchison Kendal, UK
and...@aitchison.me.uk
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel
On Sun, 16 Jan 2022, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 15. 01. 22 20:22, Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2022, Miro Hrončok wrote:
python-pytest-cov is something I've lobbied has no business in an
enterprise distro at all.
... ...
As for EPEL I strongly suggest not to introduce
in upstream CI. But not in Fedora.
Not inside Fedora *packages*, but
if these tools are not available to those using RHEL, Fedora or EPEL
is that a suitable platform for CI or for developers ?
--
Andrew C. Aitchison Kendal, UK
between runs. At that
point rebuilding them more won't help any.
Are we aiming for reproducibly built packages, like Debian
(I assume a completely reproducible *build* is still out of scope),
or is building every package on the new system sufficient ?
--
Andrew C. Aitchison
?
Thanks,
--
Andrew C. Aitchison Kendal, UK
and...@aitchison.me.uk
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le
ostgrey
so that the old file is saved at
%{_sysconfdir}/sysconfig/postgrey.rpmsave
?
--
Andrew C. Aitchison Kendal, UK
and...@aitchison.me.uk
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedorap
ersion of python ?
And some packages ship uncompiled .py scripts (not just .pyo and .pyc
files).
--
Andrew C. Aitchison Kendal, UK
and...@aitchison.me.uk
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel
guidelines that maintainers SHOULD use the python3 prefix.
Do we need to be explicit about how we spell any value of these keys
- e.g. should it be
Requires: python >= 38
or
Requires: python >= 3.8
?
--
Andrew C. Aitchison Kend
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 12/13/20 7:52 PM, Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Also, since you might want to bump the release independently in EPEL (e.g.
if we discover something was wrong in the way we have packaged this), I
recommend
es to 10.1 which will win ?
... and if we have already bumped baserelease to 2 ?
rhelrelease name
baserelease
10 2 qpdf-devel-10.2.epel.rpm
10.1qpdf-devel-10.1.rhel.rpm
Which will win ?
--
Andrew C. Aitchison
On Fri, 4 Dec 2020, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 12/3/20 10:06 PM, Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
Is %generate_buildrequires suppose to work for packages
which do not used python ?
Yes, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DynamicBuildRequires
Thanks. Now that I read that, this looks like
, except as a step on a path to somewhere else.
If build requirements need to be stated explicitly,
then automating their statement is a good way of hiding an issue
that needs to be reviewed whenever changes are made.
)
--
Andrew C. Aitchison Kendal, UK
...@lists.fedoraproject.org and I do not see it in the archive at
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org/
(although the headers on the epel-devel copy I received do suggest it was
sent to epel-announce).
--
Andrew C. Aitchison Kendal, UK
don't know that this would be
particualrly valuable.
We have had a python update which affected a lot of package,
and TUV have added lower versions of packages already in EPEL,
so the minor releases are not that trivial for packagers.
--
Andrew C. Aitchison
, the devtoolset packages
make using a newer GCC trivial with the "scl" command.
I do admit that I prefer the environment modules I have written as
an alternative to scl (they change the environment of the existing shell
rather than putting me in a new shell with the new compilers).
-
eds a newer kernel than stock SL6).
--
Andrew C. Aitchison Kendal, UK
and...@aitchison.me.uk___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to e
On Tue, 17 Dec 2019, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
This meeting is cancelled. I was not able to cancel the meetings
without doing all of them.
I assume that the meeting next week is also cancelled.
Will there be one on 1 January, or is the next meeting on the 8th ?
On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 at
he obsolete "exclude".
--
Andrew C. Aitchison Kendal, UK
and...@aitchison.me.uk
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel
e-2.6.0-1.1.el6.x86_64.rpm
which adds a dependency on /usr/bin/python3
Will EPEL6 users have to pull in an epel python3.6 as well as
epel python3.4 (and possibly in addition to SCL python33) ?
--
Andrew C. Aitchison
base system from scratch,
without requiring the availability of dpkg or apt...
It seems odd that we now require dpkg. If I get to choose, could you
remove the dependency rather than update the decription :-) ?)
Thanks,
--
Andrew C. Aitchison Cambridge, UK
26 matches
Mail list logo
