On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 14:40:19 +
Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Sat, 2023-11-18 at 09:35 +0200, Tuomo Soini wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 21:31:37 +
> > Sérgio Basto wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > Is not an negative feedback, is a side note but I realize some
> > > time ago that version with
On Sat, 2023-11-18 at 09:35 +0200, Tuomo Soini wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 21:31:37 +
> Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > Is not an negative feedback, is a side note but I realize some time
> > ago that version with next is bigger than version without next [1]
> > therefore we should find
On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 21:31:37 +
Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Hi,
> Is not an negative feedback, is a side note but I realize some time
> ago that version with next is bigger than version without next [1]
> therefore we should find a way that the el8 version be greater than
> the el8.next version.
>
Hi,
Is not an negative feedback, is a side note but I realize some time
ago that version with next is bigger than version without next [1]
therefore we should find a way that the el8 version be greater than the
el8.next version.
[1]
rpmdev-vercmp 1.el8.next 1.el8
1.el8.next > 1.el8
On
I haven't heard any negative feedback from these.
I will untag these today.
On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 12:55 PM Troy Dawson wrote:
> The following packages have the same version in epel-next as in epel.
> I plan on untagging them from epel-next unless people tell me otherwise.
>
> epel8-next:
>
