Dne 03. 12. 23 v 20:46 Emmanuel Seyman napsal(a):
Hello, all.
Wanting to promote RPM packages, I'm trying to use mock on an RHEL8 VM
that does not have unrestricted access to the internet. This fails
miserably, as you would expect it to.
I've already established that I need access to:
*
Dne 31. 03. 23 v 16:42 Troy Dawson napsal(a):
How to set it, I suggest triggers. But that needs a bit more investigation and
testing.
May I suggest file trigger?
https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/file_triggers.html
Miroslav
___
Forwarded here as it will affect old epel branches.
Přeposlaná zpráva
Předmět:SPDX identifiers in old branches?
Datum: Tue, 24 May 2022 22:11:39 +0200
Od: Miroslav Suchý
Společnost: Red Hat Czech, s.r.o.
Komu: Development discussions related to Fedora
Hi.
I want to get your feedback:
When you enable Copr repository you can run:
dnf copr enable myname/project epel-9-x86_64
The last parameter is optional and most people usually runs:
dnf copr enable myname/project
Dnf-plugins-core tries to guess [3] the correct chroot. On Fedora it is
Dne 03. 12. 21 v 19:06 Troy Dawson napsal(a):
Instructions to enable the EPEL repository are available in our documentation.[1] If there is a Fedora package you
would like to see added to EPEL 9, please let the relevant package maintainer know with a package request.[2]
For new builds, should
Dne 14. 12. 21 v 17:12 Matthew Miller napsal(a):
But it seems like "request an EPEL branch" should generally be either "Okay!
Doing that automatically now" or "Oh, this is in EL, sorry"*. What are the
other cases?
As far as I know this isn't about requesting EPEL branches, as much as
requesting
Hi.
I have two questions regarding epel9:
1) I have requested dozen of epe9 branches for my packages. It was 20+ hours ago. E.g.
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/39402
Is it manual process? Or is the automation broken?
2) It was quite pain to go through all my packages and
Dne 22. 11. 21 v 15:00 Pavel Raiskup napsal(a):
Hello Fedora EPEL maintainers!
First I don't feel comfortable announcing this, I'm not happy about the
situation and so I don't want to be the lightning rod :-). But I believe
that we can come to acceptable Copr/Mock solution and this needs to be
Dne 22. 11. 21 v 17:57 Nico Kadel-Garcia napsal(a):
Which is precisely why pointing it to the 'stream' release seems the
only workable solution.
That is EPEL-next
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL_Next#Introduction
Miroslav
___
epel-devel mailing
Dne 22. 11. 21 v 15:10 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
However, enough of my personal views. Since we have not used RHEL for copr/mock EPEL buidlroots until now, but we used
a downstream freely-available RHEL-copy (CentOS Linux), could we not continue doing so by using e.g. AlmaLinux?
For day to day
Dne 20. 11. 21 v 0:04 Troy Dawson napsal(a):
Do we keep everything in epel9-next until RHEL9 GA and then do a mass branch
over and mass rebuild? (Plan A)
And again with 9.1 GA? And again with 9.2 GA? // I do not expect answer, just pointing that minor releases should be
part of the solution.
Dne 18. 11. 21 v 20:31 Troy Dawson napsal(a):
- epel9-next stays the way it is currently setup.
Ehm, what is the current setup?
And mainly, when I build something in EPEL next, something not compatible with EPEL. How it gets to EPEL when next RHEL
9.x gets released? I see nothing relevant
Dne 16. 09. 21 v 13:23 Sérgio Basto napsal(a):
the question is, can I remove Epoch tag ? or should I put Epoch in
every branch, i.e epel 8 ?
Thank you .
Once you introduce the epoch, you have to keep it. And only increment it.
There is no way to get it rid of it. At least no way I can
Dne 22. 07. 21 v 20:42 Troy Dawson napsal(a):
I am proposing that we change the "days to stable" for epel to 7 days, matching Fedora's
"days to stable".
Hmm, I still thing that EPEL should have higher days-to-stable than Fedora. I am fine with 8 days or even lowering
Fedora threshold.
Dne 07. 06. 21 v 17:52 Matthew Miller napsal(a):
Troy answered the overall questions separately, but... in practice, I expect
this to be a very small issue.
Small issue in Koji and for Fedora Project itself. But can be bummer when you try to build your set of packages on top
of EPEL. Or
Regarding the recent announcement of CentOS 8 flipping to CentOS Stream - What
will be the configs for building EPEL 8?
I mean mock configs? And I ask as Mock maintainer - because I have no idea.
Are we going to build EPEL 8 against CentOS stream? What will happen when
CentOS stream flip to
Dne 30. 09. 19 v 10:20 fil...@centrum.cz napsal(a):
Hello
I install mock in CentOS 8 and there is no config file for CentOs 8,
will there be some provided?
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-eab983bd46
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Associate Manager ABRT/Copr, #brno,
I have released new mock-core-configs with epel-8-* configs which points to
CentOS 8 plus EPEL.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=mock-core-configs
Please test it and report any issues.
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Associate Manager ABRT/Copr, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
Dne 10. 09. 19 v 15:13 Avram Lubkin napsal(a):
> Does this work when using Fedora as the base system?
Yes, it works.
> subscription-manager is available in the Fedora repos and a Fedora
> system can be registered to RHN, but that doesn't seem sufficient to access
> the repos through mock.
Can
Dne 29. 08. 19 v 5:50 Orion Poplawski napsal(a):
> Well, building much of anything new in Fedora land on EL-7 seems pretty much
> impossible due to rpm changes so the useful
> lifetime of EL-7 for a Fedora and EPEL contributor is already essentially at
> an end. Centos 8 can't come fast
Hi,
I released new version of Mock and mock-core-configs. For full release notes
see:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/wiki/Release-Notes-1.4.18
I just submitted packages to Bodhi.
I would like to point two things here:
1) It should fixes all those issues you reported in past
What is the status of EPEL8? Or more precise - can I - as Mock maintainer - do
something so we can have EPEL available
immediately when RHEL is out? Obviously it is too late for RHEL 8, but I am
looking in future (RHEL9).
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Associate Manager ABRT/Copr, #brno,
Dne 4.11.2017 v 01:20 Stephen John Smoogen napsal(a):
> What I normally do in an enterprise setting is get the packages I am
> going to install on the boxes and collect them to their own
> repository. I then sign those packages with a rpm key that I control
> and then have all the client boxes
Dne 3.11.2017 v 05:09 Peter Rex napsal(a):
> We originally looked at Ansible and thought, OK, Red Hat, nothing more stable
> than that. Ansible, flagship product. It
> seemed like a good bet, but turned out not to be, that Red Hat wasn't likely
> to deprecate a major version of a software
>
Can someone point me to GPG key, which is used for signing CentOS7 extras?:
http://mirrorlist.centos.org/?release=7arch=x86_64repo=extras
i.e. key with ID 24c6a8a7f4a80eb5
which is different from from Key ID 6a2faea2352c64e5 used for main CentOS.
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCE, RHCDS
Red Hat, Senior
25 matches
Mail list logo
