Ok, thanks for the multiple explanations :)
On 17 June 2014 16:27, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:14:55 +0200
> Simone Caronni wrote:
>
> > On 17 June 2014 16:07, Jeff Sheltren wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:23 A
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:14:55 +0200
Simone Caronni wrote:
> On 17 June 2014 16:07, Jeff Sheltren wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Simone Caronni
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Aren't we already using CentOS for EPEL 5 and 6 in the koji
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:14:55 +0200
Simone Caronni wrote:
> Mock is using CentOS:
>
> $ pwd
> /var/cache/mock/epel-6-x86_64/yum_cache/updates/packages
> $ ls -al *centos*
> -rw-rw-r--. 1 root mock 20960 May 20 15:33
> centos-release-6-5.el6.centos.11.2.x86_64.rpm
> -rw-rw-r--. 1 root mock 962780
On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 16:14 +0200, Simone Caronni wrote:
> Mock is using CentOS:
[... snip ...]
> Don't know for Koji, but probably it's the same. No?
No, Koji uses RHEL as an external repo, and points its mock configs to
it.
--
Mathieu
___
epel-deve
On 17 June 2014 16:07, Jeff Sheltren wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Simone Caronni
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Aren't we already using CentOS for EPEL 5 and 6 in the koji/mock
>> buildroots? 32 bit aside, what is the difference for 7?
>> This has been dealt nicely so far.
>>
>
> No, EPEL has
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Simone Caronni
wrote:
>
>
> Aren't we already using CentOS for EPEL 5 and 6 in the koji/mock
> buildroots? 32 bit aside, what is the difference for 7?
> This has been dealt nicely so far.
>
No, EPEL has always used RHEL for builds.
-Jeff
___
Hello,
thanks for your answers.
On 17 June 2014 00:59, Jim Perrin wrote:
> > By using CentOS as the basis and not RHEL 7 we could have all the
> channels
> > that are not used at the moment for building.
>
>
> As much as I'd like to see CentOS as the basis for *everything* (I may
> be a bit bia
On 06/16/2014 02:39 PM, Simone Caronni wrote:
> On 16 June 2014 21:28, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 21:03:57 +0200
>> Simone Caronni wrote:
>>> CentOS 7 is being built also for i386 and that would
>>> mean a lot of semplification into adding packages in EPEL 7. Right
>>> now the
On 16 June 2014 16:59, Jim Perrin wrote:
>
>
> On 06/16/2014 02:49 PM, Simone Caronni wrote:
>
> > In previous releases CentOS was inserting in the distribution all the
> > packages that make up the full spectrum of RHEL variants, so in version 6
> > it included for example the Workstation channe
On 06/16/2014 02:49 PM, Simone Caronni wrote:
> In previous releases CentOS was inserting in the distribution all the
> packages that make up the full spectrum of RHEL variants, so in version 6
> it included for example the Workstation channel and a full Workstation was
> installable for CentOS
On 16 June 2014 21:29, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 21:12:57 +0200
> Simone Caronni wrote:
>
> >
> > Another thing, there are packages that are spread into multiple
> > upstream optional channels that make it impossible to include some
> > packages in the distribution.
> >
> > One th
On 16 June 2014 21:28, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 21:03:57 +0200
> Simone Caronni wrote:
> > CentOS 7 is being built also for i386 and that would
> > mean a lot of semplification into adding packages in EPEL 7. Right
> > now the situation is a bit weird as many multilib dependencie
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 21:12:57 +0200
Simone Caronni wrote:
>
> Another thing, there are packages that are spread into multiple
> upstream optional channels that make it impossible to include some
> packages in the distribution.
>
> One thread here:
>
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/e
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 21:03:57 +0200
Simone Caronni wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 16 June 2014 20:15, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> > * When do we want to look at leaving beta status for epel7?
> > I'd suggest we should definitely give CentOS time to release, but
> > should we have any other critera?
> >
>
>
On 06/16/2014 12:15 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Just a quick update:
* I am working to get the final rhel7 content lined up for building
against in koji, as soon as that goes live I'll drop a note here.
Great, thanks.
* When do we want to look at leaving beta status for epel7?
I'd suggest we s
On 16 June 2014 21:03, Simone Caronni wrote:
> On 16 June 2014 20:15, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
>> * When do we want to look at leaving beta status for epel7?
>> I'd suggest we should definitely give CentOS time to release, but
>> should we have any other critera?
>>
>
> I would really, really like t
Hello,
On 16 June 2014 20:15, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> * When do we want to look at leaving beta status for epel7?
> I'd suggest we should definitely give CentOS time to release, but
> should we have any other critera?
>
I would really, really like to have CentOS 7 available before the final
releas
Just a quick update:
* I am working to get the final rhel7 content lined up for building
against in koji, as soon as that goes live I'll drop a note here.
* When do we want to look at leaving beta status for epel7?
I'd suggest we should definitely give CentOS time to release, but
should we ha
18 matches
Mail list logo
