[EPEL-devel] Hints for manual upgrading from CentOS 8 Stream to CentOS / Alma / Rockey 9

[Richard Shaw]

I know upgrades are not supported but its for a small home server that
really only does two things:

BackupPC and Unifi (which I both maintain)

Anyone had success doing manual upgrades or did you start with a reinstall?

Thanks,
Richard
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[EPEL-devel] Re: Extras not enabled on koji?

[Richard Shaw]

On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 2:27 PM Stephen John Smoogen 
wrote:

>
> On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 14:54, Richard Shaw  wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to build a package that requires swig 3.0.12+. The version in
>> EPEL is way too old but swig3 is provided in the extras repo.
>>
>> I was able to build locally via mock and COPR fine, but when I tried
>> official builds it doesn't look like the "extras" repo is enabled.
>>
>> Is that on purpose?
>>
>>
> Which extras directory and which release of EL are you talking about? The
> one in CentOS is not the same as the one in RHEL and they have different
> things. EPEL builds against RHEL so that might affect things.
>

I use the Fedora CentOS 7 test instance as a test environment when trying
to track down available packages:

$ sudo yum list swig*
Loaded plugins: fastestmirror
Repository epel is listed more than once in the configuration
Repository epel-testing is listed more than once in the configuration
Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile
 * base: d36uatko69830t.cloudfront.net
 * epel: mirrors.kernel.org
 * extras: d36uatko69830t.cloudfront.net
 * updates: d36uatko69830t.cloudfront.net
Available Packages
swig.x86_64 2.0.10-5.el7
  base
swig-doc.noarch 2.0.10-5.el7
  base
swig3.x86_643.0.12-17.el7
 extras
swig3-doc.noarch3.0.12-17.el7
 extras
swig3-gdb.x86_643.0.12-17.el7
 extras

Thanks,
Richard
___
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

[EPEL-devel] Extras not enabled on koji?

[Richard Shaw]

I'm trying to build a package that requires swig 3.0.12+. The version in
EPEL is way too old but swig3 is provided in the extras repo.

I was able to build locally via mock and COPR fine, but when I tried
official builds it doesn't look like the "extras" repo is enabled.

Is that on purpose?

Thanks,
Richard
___
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

[EPEL-devel] Re: Added arches but no automatic rebuild?

[Richard Shaw]

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 9:24 AM Pat Riehecky  wrote:

> I'm showing:
>
> # Needed until LibRaw is available on s390x and aarch64
> %if 0%{?rhel} >= 8
> ExclusiveArch:  x86_64 ppc64le
> %endif
>
> Within the SPEC file.
>

Whoops, mea culpa, I forgot about that work around. Slept to many times
since then!

Thanks,
Richard
___
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

[EPEL-devel] Re: Added arches but no automatic rebuild?

[Richard Shaw]

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 9:18 AM Stephen John Smoogen 
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 at 09:46, Richard Shaw  wrote:
>
>> I'm sure it was announced but I've been very busy lately but while trying
>> to build a package for EPEL 8 I noticed that two builds (arches) failed for
>> missing dependencies but two did not.
>>
>> I see that there are a number of arches not originally part of RHEL 8,
>> which is fine, but when the arches were added shouldn't all of the affected
>> packages been rebuilt to add the new arches?
>>
>>
> I don't know what you are seeing to say this. The arches which were
> initially there were x86_64, ppc64le, s390x and aarch64. I don't know of
> any arches added after that and those have been in el8 since day 1.
>

My original build of OpenImageIO only has x86_64 and ppc64le which I
believe are the two RHEL 8 arches, correct?

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1347855

I have never used ExcludeArch in OpenImageIO...

Thanks,
Richard
___
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

[EPEL-devel] Added arches but no automatic rebuild?

[Richard Shaw]

I'm sure it was announced but I've been very busy lately but while trying
to build a package for EPEL 8 I noticed that two builds (arches) failed for
missing dependencies but two did not.

I see that there are a number of arches not originally part of RHEL 8,
which is fine, but when the arches were added shouldn't all of the affected
packages been rebuilt to add the new arches?

Thanks,
Richard
___
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

[EPEL-devel] Re: Removal of mingw-* packages from EPEL 7

[Richard Shaw]

I agree. If you're actively developing for windows you should be running
Fedora not EL.

Thanks,
Richard
___
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

[EPEL-devel] How to deal with dependencies from Power Tools repo

[Richard Shaw]

I have build BackupPC for EPEL 8 and got a few of the dependencies in EPEL
as well that aren't provided by the base repo.

One of the dependencies is provided by the Power Tools repo, but when
trying to install of course it just gives the default error that a
dependency cannot be met.

How can I make this more intuitive for the end user?

Is there a proper way to add a requires on the Power Tools repo?

Thanks,
Richard
___
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

[EPEL-devel] Re: Outstanding package requests for EPEL-8

[Richard Shaw]

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 11:14 AM Troy Dawson  wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 9:10 AM Richard Shaw  wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 9:16 AM Troy Dawson  wrote:
> >>
> >> All of the ones I've requested, I waited a few days to see if the
> >> maintainer would pick it up.  And after that I asked if they would
> >> mind if I maintained it in EPEL8.  About half of those the maintainer
> >> was fine with me maintaining the package in EPEL8.
> >> So, to answer your question, yes you can.
> >
> >
> > That may be overly nice!
> >
> >  I'm a pretty nice guy but if they are unwilling to maintain a package
> in another branch you don't need their permission to do it yourself. What
> do you do if they say no? :)
> >
>
> Actually, I've had two say no.  They were just about to retire the
> packages from Fedora.  They explained their reasons why, and I'm
> currently working on getting those dependencies out of my packages
> that required them.
>

> Honestly, I don't want more packages to maintain, I just want the
> functionalities.  I'm being overly nice hoping that someone else will
> maintain them.  But ... since I want the functionality, and I have the
> skillset, I'm willing to maintain them.
>

Well that's a little different of a situation... You could still maintain
them in EPEL if you wanted to though, but like you I'm trying not to pick
up more packages.

Thanks,
Richard
___
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

[EPEL-devel] Re: Outstanding package requests for EPEL-8

[Richard Shaw]

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 9:16 AM Troy Dawson  wrote:

> All of the ones I've requested, I waited a few days to see if the
> maintainer would pick it up.  And after that I asked if they would
> mind if I maintained it in EPEL8.  About half of those the maintainer
> was fine with me maintaining the package in EPEL8.
> So, to answer your question, yes you can.
>

That may be overly nice!

 I'm a pretty nice guy but if they are unwilling to maintain a package in
another branch you don't need their permission to do it yourself. What do
you do if they say no? :)

Thanks,
Richard
___
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

[EPEL-devel] Re: Outstanding package requests for EPEL-8

[Richard Shaw]

Add txt2man, it got filed against el6 for some reason. I just fixed it.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741795

Thanks,
Richard
___
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

[EPEL-devel] Re: About packages present in epel-7 and missing from epel-8

[Richard Shaw]

Packages from EPEL 7 don't make it automatically make it into EPEL 8. The
package maintainer has to request EPEL 8 branches.

You can either request that the maintainer support an EL 8 branch via
email, -ow...@fedoraproject.org, or submit the request in bugzilla
(more formal request).

Thanks,
Richard
___
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

[EPEL-devel] 2 weeks in testing for new packages?

[Richard Shaw]

Does it make sense for packages to wait in testing for two weeks when they
are new packages?

For example, all the packages I'm building for the first time in epel8...

Even outside of new packages I rarely get karma for my Fedora packages,
much less for my EPEL packages and two weeks is a "long time". I have some
upstreams where I have to skip releases because they update within the two
week period and the policy of obsoleting an update when a new one is
created would mean they would perpetually be in testing and never make it
to stable.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to let the maintainer determine if a
previous update should be obsoleted or not when pushing a new update?

Thanks,
Richard
___
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

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL 8 not finding buildroot overrides

[Richard Shaw]

Here's the link...

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/overrides/hdf5-1.10.5-3.el8

Which is showing as active.

Thanks,
Richard
___
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

[EPEL-devel] EPEL 8 not finding buildroot overrides

[Richard Shaw]

I have hdf5 (amongst others) in a buildroot override but when I tried to
build OpenImageIO I got the following errors in root.log:

DEBUG util.py:585:  BUILDSTDERR: No matching package to install:
'hdf5-devel'

I'm I missing something?

Ok, as I write this and investigate more it get's weirder...

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1348296
Shows the good build...

$ koji wait-repo epel8-build --build=hdf5-1.10.5-3.el8
Warning: package hdf5 is not in tag epel8-build

It's technically in epel8-testing, but should that matter? I was
"collecting" builds into an update so I didn't forget all the ones that
needed to be pushed together.

I guess I shouldn't have done that?

Thanks,
Richard
___
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

[EPEL-devel] Re: Proposed EPEL policy change: Minor release based composes

[Richard Shaw]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:24 AM Stephen John Smoogen 
wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 11:19, Richard Shaw  wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:14 AM Stephen John Smoogen 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 09:34, Richard Shaw 
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Will this also allow more significant upgrades of EPEL packages
> between minor releases?
> >> >
> >>
> >> That is the purpose if the package maintainer and their consumers want
> it.
> >
> >
> > Ok. I ran into an issue on EPEL 7 where I needed to update a package so
> it could work with a package that was part of a Review Request. Then I
> found out someone was using my library as part of validated software they
> were developing. Lesson learned the hard way. Assuming this goes through I
> will be able to update on point releases and they can chose whether to
> update their whole system or not, in which case they would have to
> revalidate anyway.
> >
>
> Correct, and they can also grab the old version out of archives and do
> what they want versus dig through koji to find it.


Then +1000 from me :)

Thanks,
Richard
___
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://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Re: Proposed EPEL policy change: Minor release based composes

[Richard Shaw]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:14 AM Stephen John Smoogen 
wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 09:34, Richard Shaw  wrote:
> >
> > Will this also allow more significant upgrades of EPEL packages between
> minor releases?
> >
>
> That is the purpose if the package maintainer and their consumers want it.
>

Ok. I ran into an issue on EPEL 7 where I needed to update a package so it
could work with a package that was part of a Review Request. Then I found
out someone was using my library as part of validated software they were
developing. Lesson learned the hard way. Assuming this goes through I will
be able to update on point releases and they can chose whether to update
their whole system or not, in which case they would have to revalidate
anyway.

Thanks,
Richard
___
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://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Re: Proposed EPEL policy change: Minor release based composes

[Richard Shaw]

Will this also allow more significant upgrades of EPEL packages between
minor releases?

Thanks,
Richard
___
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://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL 8 Beta/Alpha?

[Richard Shaw]

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 5:29 AM Paul Howarth  wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 10:53:58 +0530
>
> I seem to remember that for EL-7 we generally just branched the f19
> packages for epel7, rebuilt and that was pretty much it.
>

I thought it was more of an "opt-in" situation, that packages that had a EL
-1 branch didn't automatically get an EL new branch?

I would definitely like the opportunity to do some major version upgrades
of some of the packages I maintain.

Thanks,
Richard
___
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://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Re: CMake 3.11.0 on epel7

[Richard Shaw]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 4:57 AM, Antonio Trande 
wrote:

> Hello everyone.
>
> I wish to update CMake3 to the version 3.11.0 on epel7.
> SRPM: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/cmake3-3.11.0-1.fc27.src.rpm
>
> Any objection about?


Not from me.

I support a module upstream (out of necessity because I needed it fixed)
and they seem to have a "fixes forward" culture. I was discouraged from
backporting the fix in a patch because it would create a different behavior
on Fedora from other distros and was instead encouraged to work around the
problem (use a fixed local copy). So we should probably stay on the latest
minor/patch release for the major version of the package, in this case 3.

Thanks,
Richard
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Intent to update openjpeg2 from 2.1.0 to 2.3.0

[Richard Shaw]

Openjpeg2 has MANY CVE bugs reported against it and most are fixed with the
current release. I have run abi-compliance-checker on the packages and it
shows 100% binary compatibility so there should not be a problem.

Thanks,
Richard
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org