The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
13 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-612bab5fc3
drupal7-7.67-1.el6
10 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-5ff064965f
drupal7-entity-1.9-1.el6
5 https://bodhi.fedoraprojec
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
289 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-3c9292b62d
condor-8.6.11-1.el7
97 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-f8311ec8a2
tor-0.3.5.8-1.el7
64 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/
On Thu, May 30, 2019, at 6:57 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 4:25 PM James Cassell
> wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > Historical composes are intended to be frozen and unchanging, but this
> > > > approach leaves open the possibility of tagging other builds into
> > > > epel8-8.
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 4:25 PM James Cassell
wrote:
> > >
> > > Historical composes are intended to be frozen and unchanging, but this
> > > approach leaves open the possibility of tagging other builds into
> > > epel8-8.Y and regenerating the compose if the need arises. It will
> > > need to be
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 4:02 PM Troy Dawson wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 12:18 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > Also might there be people who want to always keep something in rawhide
> > and never push it to the stable stream? Or do we want to encourage only
> > things destined for the next mino
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 3:18 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> > As discussed in the EPEL SIG meeting yesterday, I've written up my
> > thoughts on how to handle epel8 branches.
>
> TLDR: I like it. ;)
>
> > # Considerations
> > * The process must be simple for a Fedora packager to adapt to
> > * It must
On Thu, May 30, 2019, at 3:18 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > As discussed in the EPEL SIG meeting yesterday, I've written up my
> > thoughts on how to handle epel8 branches.
>
[...]
> >
> > When the time comes where an incompatible change needs to land, they
> > must be coordinated to land on an ap
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 12:18 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> > As discussed in the EPEL SIG meeting yesterday, I've written up my
> > thoughts on how to handle epel8 branches.
>
> TLDR: I like it. ;)
>
> > # Considerations
> > * The process must be simple for a Fedora packager to adapt to
> > * It must
On Thu, 30 May 2019 at 15:32, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 30. 05. 19 20:21, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > ## epel8-rawhide:
> > This branch will be left alone until and unless the packager decides
> > that they want to stage a major (possibly incompatible) change for the
> > next RHEL 8.Y minor relea
On 30. 05. 19 20:21, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
## epel8-rawhide:
This branch will be left alone until and unless the packager decides
that they want to stage a major (possibly incompatible) change for the
next RHEL 8.Y minor release. At that time, they will need to remove
the package.cfg file from
> As discussed in the EPEL SIG meeting yesterday, I've written up my
> thoughts on how to handle epel8 branches.
TLDR: I like it. ;)
> # Considerations
> * The process must be simple for a Fedora packager to adapt to
> * It must be possible to stage big (possibly backwards-incompatible) changes
>
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
288 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-3c9292b62d
condor-8.6.11-1.el7
96 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-f8311ec8a2
tor-0.3.5.8-1.el7
64 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
As discussed in the EPEL SIG meeting yesterday, I've written up my
thoughts on how to handle epel8 branches.
# Considerations
* The process must be simple for a Fedora packager to adapt to
* It must be possible to stage big (possibly backwards-incom
13 matches
Mail list logo
