On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 12:42:15PM +0200, Antonio Trande wrote:
> Shortly (Martin is in Cc to confirm):
>
> 1) Make a module:
>
> $ fedpkg clone cmake3
> $ fedpkg request-repo --namespace modules --exception cmake3-latest
> $ fedpkg request-branch --namespace modules --repo cmake3-latest epel8
>
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 10:37 AM Orion Poplawski wrote:
>
> On 5/15/20 8:32 AM, Alexander Korsunsky wrote:
> >> Has anyone asked if CMake could be updated in RHEL yet?
> >
> > This would be the absolute best option here, but it depends on the
> > benevolence of Red Hat.
> >
> > I don't have a
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 06:30:04AM -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 6:15 AM Petr Pisar wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 12:42:15PM +0200, Antonio Trande wrote:
> > > Shortly (Martin is in Cc to confirm):
> > >
> > > 1) Make a module:
> > >
> > > $ fedpkg clone cmake3
> >
On 5/15/20 8:32 AM, Alexander Korsunsky wrote:
Has anyone asked if CMake could be updated in RHEL yet?
This would be the absolute best option here, but it depends on the benevolence
of Red Hat.
I don't have a subscription and I don't know how to ask them for a rebase without one.
Maybe
On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 20:00, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 3:32 PM Michel Alexandre Salim
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > We're working on validating CentOS 8 for some desktop use cases at work,
> > and noticed that after working fine on a machine that's installed
> > several
On Fri, 15 May 2020 at 09:06, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 8:02 AM Stephen John Smoogen
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 20:00, Nico Kadel-Garcia
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 3:32 PM Michel Alexandre Salim
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> Has anyone asked if CMake could be updated in RHEL yet?
This would be the absolute best option here, but it depends on the benevolence
of Red Hat.
I don't have a subscription and I don't know how to ask them for a rebase
without one. Maybe there's some kind of process for getting stuff into
On 5/14/20 4:59 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
It's an ongoing problem. EPEL's decision to show only the most recent
versions of RPMs, and to trim old RPMs out, is a destabilizing problem
and why I make hrdlinked snapshots of EPEL using "rsnapshot" for
internal access to old packages.
So
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 10:37 AM Michel Alexandre Salim
wrote:
> Or have a "purgatory" repo where packages retired in EL 8.2 get to live
> until, say, a month after CentOS 8.2 is GA? Again, seems like too much work.
>
Or, perhaps we could archive things before a release.
I guess my reply got
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 12:39 PM Leon Fauster
wrote:
>
> I wanted to request a new EPEL package and noticed that it is not
> possible to select the package name (fedora) in the component field
> in the bug report form (Product: Fedora EPEL). Is this enforced or is
> this a regression? I remember
The current version of oniguruma in EPEL 7 is affected by multiple CVEs.
* rhbz#1466750 - CVE-2017-9224 CVE-2017-9225 CVE-2017-9226
CVE-2017-9227 CVE-2017-9228 CVE-2017-9229
* rhbz#1728967 - CVE-2019-13225
* rhbz#1728972 - CVE-2019-13224
* rhbz#1768999 - CVE-2019-16163
* rhbz#1770213 -
I wanted to request a new EPEL package and noticed that it is not
possible to select the package name (fedora) in the component field
in the bug report form (Product: Fedora EPEL). Is this enforced or is
this a regression? I remember making such requests without problem.
The targeted package in
Am 15.05.20 um 22:04 schrieb Troy Dawson:
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 12:39 PM Leon Fauster
wrote:
I wanted to request a new EPEL package and noticed that it is not
possible to select the package name (fedora) in the component field
in the bug report form (Product: Fedora EPEL). Is this enforced
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 4:19 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 03:59:57PM -0500, Carl George wrote:
>
> > Let me know your thoughts and concerns about moving forward with this.
>
> +1 here and thanks for making epel a safer place.
>
>
+1, thanks!
-Jeff
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 03:59:57PM -0500, Carl George wrote:
> The current version of oniguruma in EPEL 7 is affected by multiple CVEs.
>
> * rhbz#1466750 - CVE-2017-9224 CVE-2017-9225 CVE-2017-9226
> CVE-2017-9227 CVE-2017-9228 CVE-2017-9229
> * rhbz#1728967 - CVE-2019-13225
> * rhbz#1728972 -
Hi there,
the version of CMake that is currently packaged with RHEL/CentOS 8 is 3.11,
which is becoming more and more outdated. Me (and a few other people, judging
by bug report participation) would quite like to have a newer version of CMake
on their systems.
Now, if I understand correctly,
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 08:58:21AM -, Alexander Korsunsky wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> the version of CMake that is currently packaged with RHEL/CentOS 8 is 3.11,
> which is becoming more and more outdated. Me (and a few other people,
> judging by bug report participation) would quite like to have
Shortly (Martin is in Cc to confirm):
1) Make a module:
$ fedpkg clone cmake3
$ fedpkg request-repo --namespace modules --exception cmake3-latest
$ fedpkg request-branch --namespace modules --repo cmake3-latest epel8
2) Writing a `modulemd` file based on this example [1]:
[1]
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 4:58 AM Alexander Korsunsky
wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> the version of CMake that is currently packaged with RHEL/CentOS 8 is 3.11,
> which is becoming more and more outdated. Me (and a few other people, judging
> by bug report participation) would quite like to have a
19 matches
Mail list logo
