[EPEL-devel] Re: Does EPEL 9 Koji have older c9s packages than local mock?
Short answer: Yes Longer Answer: epel9 currently has what is going to be in RHEL 9.0. CentOS Stream 9 (what you get with local mock) has several updated packages that will be in RHEL 9.1 If you find that your packages will only build on the current CentOS STream 9, then you should build them in epel9-next. epel9-next builds off the current CentOS Stream 9. Troy On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 11:22 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > Hello, > > I've been trying to debug a segfault during %check that only occurs in > epel9 > Koji, but not in mock. > > At the end, I compared the list of packages with: > > $ koji list-buildroot 34845388 | sort > koji > $ mock -r centos-stream+epel-9-x86_64 shell -- rpm -qa | sort > mock > $ diff -u koji mock | grep -v ' ' > +acl-2.3.1-3.el9.x86_64 > -audit-libs-3.0.7-101.el9.x86_64 > +audit-libs-3.0.7-102.el9.x86_64 > -binutils-gold-2.35.2-17.el9.x86_64 > -binutils-2.35.2-17.el9.x86_64 > +binutils-gold-2.35.2-19.el9.x86_64 > +binutils-2.35.2-19.el9.x86_64 > -centos-gpg-keys-9.0-9.el9.noarch > -centos-stream-release-9.0-9.el9.noarch > -centos-stream-repos-9.0-9.el9.noarch > +centos-gpg-keys-9.0-12.el9.noarch > +centos-stream-release-9.0-12.el9.noarch > +centos-stream-repos-9.0-12.el9.noarch > -crypto-policies-20220203-1.gitf03e75e.el9.noarch > +crypto-policies-20220404-1.git845c0c1.el9.noarch > +cryptsetup-libs-2.4.3-4.el9.x86_64 > -cyrus-sasl-lib-2.1.27-19.el9.x86_64 > +cyrus-sasl-lib-2.1.27-20.el9.x86_64 > +dbus-broker-28-5.el9.x86_64 > +dbus-common-1.12.20-5.el9.noarch > +dbus-1.12.20-5.el9.x86_64 > +device-mapper-libs-1.02.183-4.el9.x86_64 > +device-mapper-1.02.183-4.el9.x86_64 > -elfutils-debuginfod-client-0.186-1.el9.x86_64 > -elfutils-default-yama-scope-0.186-1.el9.noarch > -elfutils-libelf-0.186-1.el9.x86_64 > -elfutils-libs-0.186-1.el9.x86_64 > -elfutils-0.186-1.el9.x86_64 > -epel-release-9-2.el9.noarch > +elfutils-debuginfod-client-0.186-3.el9.x86_64 > +elfutils-default-yama-scope-0.186-3.el9.noarch > +elfutils-libelf-0.186-3.el9.x86_64 > +elfutils-libs-0.186-3.el9.x86_64 > +elfutils-0.186-3.el9.x86_64 > -expat-2.2.10-9.el9.x86_64 > -fedpkg-minimal-1.2.0-4.el9.noarch > +expat-2.2.10-10.el9.x86_64 > -flexiblas-netlib-3.0.4-7.el9.x86_64 > -flexiblas-openblas-openmp-3.0.4-7.el9.x86_64 > -flexiblas-3.0.4-7.el9.x86_64 > +flexiblas-netlib-3.0.4-8.el9.x86_64 > +flexiblas-openblas-openmp-3.0.4-8.el9.x86_64 > +flexiblas-3.0.4-8.el9.x86_64 > -glibc-common-2.34-25.el9.x86_64 > -glibc-gconv-extra-2.34-25.el9.x86_64 > -glibc-minimal-langpack-2.34-25.el9.x86_64 > -glibc-2.34-25.el9.x86_64 > +glibc-common-2.34-29.el9.x86_64 > +glibc-gconv-extra-2.34-29.el9.x86_64 > +glibc-minimal-langpack-2.34-29.el9.x86_64 > +glibc-2.34-29.el9.x86_64 > -gnutls-3.7.3-6.el9.x86_64 > +gnutls-3.7.3-9.el9.x86_64 > +gpg-pubkey-3228467c-613798eb > +gpg-pubkey-8483c65d-5ccc5b19 > -krb5-libs-1.19.1-13.el9.x86_64 > +kmod-libs-28-7.el9.x86_64 > +krb5-libs-1.19.1-15.el9.x86_64 > -libgcc-11.2.1-9.4.el9.x86_64 > -libgcrypt-1.10.0-2.el9.x86_64 > -libgfortran-11.2.1-9.4.el9.x86_64 > -libgomp-11.2.1-9.4.el9.x86_64 > +libgcc-11.2.1-10.el9.x86_64 > +libgcrypt-1.10.0-3.el9.x86_64 > +libgfortran-11.2.1-10.el9.x86_64 > +libgomp-11.2.1-10.el9.x86_64 > -libquadmath-11.2.1-9.4.el9.x86_64 > +libquadmath-11.2.1-10.el9.x86_64 > +libseccomp-2.5.2-2.el9.x86_64 > -libstdc++-11.2.1-9.4.el9.x86_64 > +libstdc++-11.2.1-10.el9.x86_64 > -libxml2-2.9.12-4.el9.x86_64 > +libxml2-2.9.13-1.el9.x86_64 > -openblas-openmp-0.3.15-2.el9.x86_64 > +openblas-openmp-0.3.15-3.el9.x86_64 > -openblas-0.3.15-2.el9.x86_64 > -openldap-2.4.59-3.el9.x86_64 > -openssl-libs-3.0.1-12.el9.x86_64 > -openssl-3.0.1-12.el9.x86_64 > +openblas-0.3.15-3.el9.x86_64 > +openldap-2.4.59-4.el9.x86_64 > +openssl-libs-3.0.1-18.el9.x86_64 > +openssl-3.0.1-18.el9.x86_64 > -pyproject-rpm-macros-1.0.0~rc1-1.el9.noarch > +pyproject-rpm-macros-1.0.1-1.el9.noarch > -systemd-libs-250-3.el9.x86_64 > +systemd-libs-250-4.el9.x86_64 > +systemd-pam-250-4.el9.x86_64 > +systemd-rpm-macros-250-4.el9.noarch > +systemd-250-4.el9.x86_64 > -tpm2-tss-3.0.3-7.el9.x86_64 > -zlib-1.2.11-31.el9.x86_64 > +zlib-1.2.11-32.el9.x86_64 > > This seems like my local mock has newer c9s packages than the Koji build > repo. > Is that expected, or is pulling c9s packages into the build repo stuck on > Koji > side? > > Actually, I got an idea that EPEL 9 Koji might already be using > (internal?) > RHEL 9.0, possibly I have missed this switch... However, the > centos-stream-release package contraditcs taht idea :/ > > I've checked with an EPEL 9 Next Koji scratchbuild and it got e.g. > pyproject-rpm-macros-1.0.1-1.el9. > > -- > Miro Hrončok > -- > Phone: +420777974800 > IRC: mhroncok > ___ > epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines:
[EPEL-devel] Re: Does EPEL 9 Koji have older c9s packages than local mock?
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 2:22 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > Hello, > > I've been trying to debug a segfault during %check that only occurs in epel9 > Koji, but not in mock. > > At the end, I compared the list of packages with: > > $ koji list-buildroot 34845388 | sort > koji > $ mock -r centos-stream+epel-9-x86_64 shell -- rpm -qa | sort > mock > $ diff -u koji mock | grep -v ' ' > +acl-2.3.1-3.el9.x86_64 > -audit-libs-3.0.7-101.el9.x86_64 > +audit-libs-3.0.7-102.el9.x86_64 > -binutils-gold-2.35.2-17.el9.x86_64 > -binutils-2.35.2-17.el9.x86_64 > +binutils-gold-2.35.2-19.el9.x86_64 > +binutils-2.35.2-19.el9.x86_64 > -centos-gpg-keys-9.0-9.el9.noarch > -centos-stream-release-9.0-9.el9.noarch > -centos-stream-repos-9.0-9.el9.noarch > +centos-gpg-keys-9.0-12.el9.noarch > +centos-stream-release-9.0-12.el9.noarch > +centos-stream-repos-9.0-12.el9.noarch > -crypto-policies-20220203-1.gitf03e75e.el9.noarch > +crypto-policies-20220404-1.git845c0c1.el9.noarch > +cryptsetup-libs-2.4.3-4.el9.x86_64 > -cyrus-sasl-lib-2.1.27-19.el9.x86_64 > +cyrus-sasl-lib-2.1.27-20.el9.x86_64 > +dbus-broker-28-5.el9.x86_64 > +dbus-common-1.12.20-5.el9.noarch > +dbus-1.12.20-5.el9.x86_64 > +device-mapper-libs-1.02.183-4.el9.x86_64 > +device-mapper-1.02.183-4.el9.x86_64 > -elfutils-debuginfod-client-0.186-1.el9.x86_64 > -elfutils-default-yama-scope-0.186-1.el9.noarch > -elfutils-libelf-0.186-1.el9.x86_64 > -elfutils-libs-0.186-1.el9.x86_64 > -elfutils-0.186-1.el9.x86_64 > -epel-release-9-2.el9.noarch > +elfutils-debuginfod-client-0.186-3.el9.x86_64 > +elfutils-default-yama-scope-0.186-3.el9.noarch > +elfutils-libelf-0.186-3.el9.x86_64 > +elfutils-libs-0.186-3.el9.x86_64 > +elfutils-0.186-3.el9.x86_64 > -expat-2.2.10-9.el9.x86_64 > -fedpkg-minimal-1.2.0-4.el9.noarch > +expat-2.2.10-10.el9.x86_64 > -flexiblas-netlib-3.0.4-7.el9.x86_64 > -flexiblas-openblas-openmp-3.0.4-7.el9.x86_64 > -flexiblas-3.0.4-7.el9.x86_64 > +flexiblas-netlib-3.0.4-8.el9.x86_64 > +flexiblas-openblas-openmp-3.0.4-8.el9.x86_64 > +flexiblas-3.0.4-8.el9.x86_64 > -glibc-common-2.34-25.el9.x86_64 > -glibc-gconv-extra-2.34-25.el9.x86_64 > -glibc-minimal-langpack-2.34-25.el9.x86_64 > -glibc-2.34-25.el9.x86_64 > +glibc-common-2.34-29.el9.x86_64 > +glibc-gconv-extra-2.34-29.el9.x86_64 > +glibc-minimal-langpack-2.34-29.el9.x86_64 > +glibc-2.34-29.el9.x86_64 > -gnutls-3.7.3-6.el9.x86_64 > +gnutls-3.7.3-9.el9.x86_64 > +gpg-pubkey-3228467c-613798eb > +gpg-pubkey-8483c65d-5ccc5b19 > -krb5-libs-1.19.1-13.el9.x86_64 > +kmod-libs-28-7.el9.x86_64 > +krb5-libs-1.19.1-15.el9.x86_64 > -libgcc-11.2.1-9.4.el9.x86_64 > -libgcrypt-1.10.0-2.el9.x86_64 > -libgfortran-11.2.1-9.4.el9.x86_64 > -libgomp-11.2.1-9.4.el9.x86_64 > +libgcc-11.2.1-10.el9.x86_64 > +libgcrypt-1.10.0-3.el9.x86_64 > +libgfortran-11.2.1-10.el9.x86_64 > +libgomp-11.2.1-10.el9.x86_64 > -libquadmath-11.2.1-9.4.el9.x86_64 > +libquadmath-11.2.1-10.el9.x86_64 > +libseccomp-2.5.2-2.el9.x86_64 > -libstdc++-11.2.1-9.4.el9.x86_64 > +libstdc++-11.2.1-10.el9.x86_64 > -libxml2-2.9.12-4.el9.x86_64 > +libxml2-2.9.13-1.el9.x86_64 > -openblas-openmp-0.3.15-2.el9.x86_64 > +openblas-openmp-0.3.15-3.el9.x86_64 > -openblas-0.3.15-2.el9.x86_64 > -openldap-2.4.59-3.el9.x86_64 > -openssl-libs-3.0.1-12.el9.x86_64 > -openssl-3.0.1-12.el9.x86_64 > +openblas-0.3.15-3.el9.x86_64 > +openldap-2.4.59-4.el9.x86_64 > +openssl-libs-3.0.1-18.el9.x86_64 > +openssl-3.0.1-18.el9.x86_64 > -pyproject-rpm-macros-1.0.0~rc1-1.el9.noarch > +pyproject-rpm-macros-1.0.1-1.el9.noarch > -systemd-libs-250-3.el9.x86_64 > +systemd-libs-250-4.el9.x86_64 > +systemd-pam-250-4.el9.x86_64 > +systemd-rpm-macros-250-4.el9.noarch > +systemd-250-4.el9.x86_64 > -tpm2-tss-3.0.3-7.el9.x86_64 > -zlib-1.2.11-31.el9.x86_64 > +zlib-1.2.11-32.el9.x86_64 > > This seems like my local mock has newer c9s packages than the Koji build repo. > Is that expected, or is pulling c9s packages into the build repo stuck on Koji > side? > > Actually, I got an idea that EPEL 9 Koji might already be using (internal?) > RHEL 9.0, possibly I have missed this switch... However, the > centos-stream-release package contraditcs taht idea :/ > > I've checked with an EPEL 9 Next Koji scratchbuild and it got e.g. > pyproject-rpm-macros-1.0.1-1.el9. EPEL 9 is frozen on the Feb 24 compose for CentOS Stream 9 until RHEL 9 GA. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! ___ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[EPEL-devel] Re: Does EPEL 9 Koji have older c9s packages than local mock?
On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 at 14:22, Miro Hrončok wrote: > Hello, > > I've been trying to debug a segfault during %check that only occurs in > epel9 > Koji, but not in mock. > > At the end, I compared the list of packages with: > > > ... > This seems like my local mock has newer c9s packages than the Koji build > repo. > Is that expected, or is pulling c9s packages into the build repo stuck on > Koji > side? > > Yes it is expected until RHEL9 comes out and then EPEL9 is moved to using RHEL9 as its build environment. At some point a month ago or so, the sync was stopped from updating CentOS 9 on Fedora's batcave box for using with koji. That was to make sure that EPEL9 did not start getting packages from the future which would cause builds not to work after RHEL9 came out. I think that this was announced earlier but I don't know if it was only at the Alpha Centauri filing cabinet that I keep track of (aka IRC meeting) or an email. > Actually, I got an idea that EPEL 9 Koji might already be using > (internal?) > RHEL 9.0, possibly I have missed this switch... However, the > centos-stream-release package contraditcs taht idea :/ > > I've checked with an EPEL 9 Next Koji scratchbuild and it got e.g. > pyproject-rpm-macros-1.0.1-1.el9. > > -- > Miro Hrončok > -- > Phone: +420777974800 > IRC: mhroncok > ___ > epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure > -- Stephen J Smoogen. Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle. -- Ian MacClaren ___ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[EPEL-devel] Re: Does EPEL 9 Koji have older c9s packages than local mock?
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 07:53:10PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > Hello, > > I've been trying to debug a segfault during %check that only occurs in epel9 > Koji, but not in mock. > > At the end, I compared the list of packages with: ...snip... > > This seems like my local mock has newer c9s packages than the Koji build > repo. Is that expected, or is pulling c9s packages into the build repo stuck > on Koji side? It's expected, because epel9 is going to be tracking RHEL9 as soon as it's out, so we cut the sync when CentOS stream 9 started tracking 9.1 packages. Your local mock likely has 9.1 packages. > Actually, I got an idea that EPEL 9 Koji might already be using (internal?) > RHEL 9.0, possibly I have missed this switch... However, the > centos-stream-release package contraditcs taht idea :/ > > I've checked with an EPEL 9 Next Koji scratchbuild and it got e.g. > pyproject-rpm-macros-1.0.1-1.el9. It's not using rhel9 (yet) just a snapshot of stream9 back when it was tracking 9.0. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL conflicts with Satellite 6 packages
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 11:24 AM Troy Dawson wrote: > > So, in summary. > Yes, things are in better shape for Satellite and EPEL. At least for RHEL > 8 and 9. > > Thanks so much! This is extremely helpful, and gives us some idea on how to proceed. Amos ___ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[EPEL-devel] Does EPEL 9 Koji have older c9s packages than local mock?
Hello, I've been trying to debug a segfault during %check that only occurs in epel9 Koji, but not in mock. At the end, I compared the list of packages with: $ koji list-buildroot 34845388 | sort > koji $ mock -r centos-stream+epel-9-x86_64 shell -- rpm -qa | sort > mock $ diff -u koji mock | grep -v ' ' +acl-2.3.1-3.el9.x86_64 -audit-libs-3.0.7-101.el9.x86_64 +audit-libs-3.0.7-102.el9.x86_64 -binutils-gold-2.35.2-17.el9.x86_64 -binutils-2.35.2-17.el9.x86_64 +binutils-gold-2.35.2-19.el9.x86_64 +binutils-2.35.2-19.el9.x86_64 -centos-gpg-keys-9.0-9.el9.noarch -centos-stream-release-9.0-9.el9.noarch -centos-stream-repos-9.0-9.el9.noarch +centos-gpg-keys-9.0-12.el9.noarch +centos-stream-release-9.0-12.el9.noarch +centos-stream-repos-9.0-12.el9.noarch -crypto-policies-20220203-1.gitf03e75e.el9.noarch +crypto-policies-20220404-1.git845c0c1.el9.noarch +cryptsetup-libs-2.4.3-4.el9.x86_64 -cyrus-sasl-lib-2.1.27-19.el9.x86_64 +cyrus-sasl-lib-2.1.27-20.el9.x86_64 +dbus-broker-28-5.el9.x86_64 +dbus-common-1.12.20-5.el9.noarch +dbus-1.12.20-5.el9.x86_64 +device-mapper-libs-1.02.183-4.el9.x86_64 +device-mapper-1.02.183-4.el9.x86_64 -elfutils-debuginfod-client-0.186-1.el9.x86_64 -elfutils-default-yama-scope-0.186-1.el9.noarch -elfutils-libelf-0.186-1.el9.x86_64 -elfutils-libs-0.186-1.el9.x86_64 -elfutils-0.186-1.el9.x86_64 -epel-release-9-2.el9.noarch +elfutils-debuginfod-client-0.186-3.el9.x86_64 +elfutils-default-yama-scope-0.186-3.el9.noarch +elfutils-libelf-0.186-3.el9.x86_64 +elfutils-libs-0.186-3.el9.x86_64 +elfutils-0.186-3.el9.x86_64 -expat-2.2.10-9.el9.x86_64 -fedpkg-minimal-1.2.0-4.el9.noarch +expat-2.2.10-10.el9.x86_64 -flexiblas-netlib-3.0.4-7.el9.x86_64 -flexiblas-openblas-openmp-3.0.4-7.el9.x86_64 -flexiblas-3.0.4-7.el9.x86_64 +flexiblas-netlib-3.0.4-8.el9.x86_64 +flexiblas-openblas-openmp-3.0.4-8.el9.x86_64 +flexiblas-3.0.4-8.el9.x86_64 -glibc-common-2.34-25.el9.x86_64 -glibc-gconv-extra-2.34-25.el9.x86_64 -glibc-minimal-langpack-2.34-25.el9.x86_64 -glibc-2.34-25.el9.x86_64 +glibc-common-2.34-29.el9.x86_64 +glibc-gconv-extra-2.34-29.el9.x86_64 +glibc-minimal-langpack-2.34-29.el9.x86_64 +glibc-2.34-29.el9.x86_64 -gnutls-3.7.3-6.el9.x86_64 +gnutls-3.7.3-9.el9.x86_64 +gpg-pubkey-3228467c-613798eb +gpg-pubkey-8483c65d-5ccc5b19 -krb5-libs-1.19.1-13.el9.x86_64 +kmod-libs-28-7.el9.x86_64 +krb5-libs-1.19.1-15.el9.x86_64 -libgcc-11.2.1-9.4.el9.x86_64 -libgcrypt-1.10.0-2.el9.x86_64 -libgfortran-11.2.1-9.4.el9.x86_64 -libgomp-11.2.1-9.4.el9.x86_64 +libgcc-11.2.1-10.el9.x86_64 +libgcrypt-1.10.0-3.el9.x86_64 +libgfortran-11.2.1-10.el9.x86_64 +libgomp-11.2.1-10.el9.x86_64 -libquadmath-11.2.1-9.4.el9.x86_64 +libquadmath-11.2.1-10.el9.x86_64 +libseccomp-2.5.2-2.el9.x86_64 -libstdc++-11.2.1-9.4.el9.x86_64 +libstdc++-11.2.1-10.el9.x86_64 -libxml2-2.9.12-4.el9.x86_64 +libxml2-2.9.13-1.el9.x86_64 -openblas-openmp-0.3.15-2.el9.x86_64 +openblas-openmp-0.3.15-3.el9.x86_64 -openblas-0.3.15-2.el9.x86_64 -openldap-2.4.59-3.el9.x86_64 -openssl-libs-3.0.1-12.el9.x86_64 -openssl-3.0.1-12.el9.x86_64 +openblas-0.3.15-3.el9.x86_64 +openldap-2.4.59-4.el9.x86_64 +openssl-libs-3.0.1-18.el9.x86_64 +openssl-3.0.1-18.el9.x86_64 -pyproject-rpm-macros-1.0.0~rc1-1.el9.noarch +pyproject-rpm-macros-1.0.1-1.el9.noarch -systemd-libs-250-3.el9.x86_64 +systemd-libs-250-4.el9.x86_64 +systemd-pam-250-4.el9.x86_64 +systemd-rpm-macros-250-4.el9.noarch +systemd-250-4.el9.x86_64 -tpm2-tss-3.0.3-7.el9.x86_64 -zlib-1.2.11-31.el9.x86_64 +zlib-1.2.11-32.el9.x86_64 This seems like my local mock has newer c9s packages than the Koji build repo. Is that expected, or is pulling c9s packages into the build repo stuck on Koji side? Actually, I got an idea that EPEL 9 Koji might already be using (internal?) RHEL 9.0, possibly I have missed this switch... However, the centos-stream-release package contraditcs taht idea :/ I've checked with an EPEL 9 Next Koji scratchbuild and it got e.g. pyproject-rpm-macros-1.0.1-1.el9. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[EPEL-devel] Re: [HEADS UP] ImageMagick side-tag for epel8
On Thu, 2022-04-21 at 12:35 -0700, Troy Dawson wrote: > Hi Sérgio, > We aren't sure if you saw this or not, but you have permission to > move ahead with the re-builds. > Let us know if you need help with anything. Hi, thank you , I'm aware, I will try do it this weekend . I have a issue in email client ( evolution ) which me prevents me to select text, in my remote desktop, which limits me to write emails properly ... Best regards, > On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 3:06 PM Carl George wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 5:17 PM Troy Dawson > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 3:00 PM Sérgio Basto > > wrote: > > >> > > >> On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 13:08 -0700, Troy Dawson wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 12:46 PM Sérgio Basto > > wrote: > > >> > > >> On Thu, 2022-03-31 at 11:54 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > >> > > This update changes a library soname, which makes it an > > >> > > incompatible > > >> > > upgrade. It must follow the EPEL incompatible upgrades > > policy [0]. > > >> > > This email can count as step 1 once you reply with the > > specific > > >> > > CVEs > > >> > > this will address. Then it must be open for discussion on > > list for > > >> > > one week (step 2) before being added as an agenda item at > > next > > >> > > week's > > >> > > EPEL Steering Committee meeting [1] (step 3). > > >> > > > > >> > > [0] > > >> > > > > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-incompatible-upgrades/ > > >> > > [1] https://calendar.fedoraproject.org/epel/#m9854 > > >> > > > >> > OK , thank you > > >> > > >> > > >> Hi, > > >> have we any new ? > > >> > > >> I'd like move on before rhel 8.6 be available . > > >> > > >> > > >> Thank you > > >> > > >> > > >> Hi Sérgio, > > >> Could you list the CVE's that this update addresses. > > >> If that list is fairly long, at least the important ones > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> we got 82 reported on bugzilla > > >> > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW_status=ASSIGNED=Fedora=ImageMagick_id=12543908=Fedora%20EPEL_format=advanced > > > > > > > > > Youch! > > > Next time, lead with that. :) > > > I joke, but that's really what we were waiting for. > > > It's a Friday afternoon, and I'm pretty certain we won't get > > enough of the committee reading this to give a full vote until next > > week. > > > But, as for me, I give it a +1. > > > Troy > > > > > > > > > ___ > > > epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > > > To unsubscribe send an email to > > epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > > > Fedora Code of Conduct: > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > > > List Guidelines: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > > > List Archives: > > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > > > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: > > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure > > > > This was approved [0] in today's EPEL Steering Committee meeting. > > Please continue with the process for incompatible upgrades from > > step 4 > > forward [1]. > > > > [0] > > > https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/epel/epel.2022-04-13-20.00.html > > [1] > > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-incompatible-upgrades/#process_for_incompatible_upgrades > > -- Sérgio M. B. ___ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
