On 14.10.20 19:32, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> We now allow scls if:
>
> * They only need to be used at build time (ie, the rpms produced do not
> require users to install/enable any scls)
> * They are approved by the epel steering comittee.
>
> So far we have only enabled devtoolset. (so for
On 13.10.20 12:14, Leon Fauster wrote:
> My recall was this
>
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/DBAQB3V35TXPNUV4UKKHXUC52BENZJUQ/
OK, thanks, that clears that up. So I'll go ahead and retire the EPEL7
package. Maybe I can put an updated
On 11.10.20 23:29, Nick Howitt wrote:
> How do you intend to handle the switch to PHP7.3?
Not sure yet - I wanted to make sure it even makes sense to keep
nextcloud in EPEL7 first. But that's another reason it's probably risky
to jump people from NC10 to NC18+ (NC13 was the last release to
On 12.10.20 12:09, Petr Pisar wrote:
> RHEL releases a minor version every six months. And as I remember, EPEL8
> allows breaking upgrades at each new RHEL release. Thus technically, it's
> possible to rebase the package every year without getting into conflict with
> packaging guidelines. On the
On 12.10.20 10:49, Leon Fauster wrote:
> Not sure but IIRC EPEL should not depend on software collections ...?
Can someone confirm that? If the package can't depend on php7.2+, then
the question of how to deal with EPEL7 is moot.
Christopher
___
Hi,
the nextcloud server package is currently stuck at ancient version 10
(current is 20) in EPEL7 (It's not (yet) available EPEL8 repos).
I'd like to fix that, but
- upstream releases a new version roughly every 4 months
- they support them only for roughly 1 year (officially it's "at least 8
One thing I forgot that makes things even worse:
- upstream does not support updates across more than one major version,
so anybody who actually has the old v10 installed will have their
installation completely broken by ANY update at this point
- for the same reason, trying to limit major
On 11.10.20 13:57, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> I'm fine with retiring it.
>
> But on the alternatives , you can have modules (or application
> streams) for both epel and fedora.
> It would be a good way forward. so it won't enforce nextcloud version
> with a given fedora and or epel and would allow
On 11.10.20 15:10, H wrote:
> I'd like it updated, and kept updated, for EPEL 7.
Do you happen to have a system with the current 10.0.something EPEL7
package set up & would you be willing to - if I make an updated package
- test the upgrade process? I could set up something myself, but I think
On 09.12.20 15:20, Troy Dawson wrote:
> Does anyone know of a group that is going to start their own RHEL Clone?
I'm sure the Scientific Linux people will do something, given that they
just recently decided to not release SL8 but rather use CentOS 8. I feel
quite bad for them, actually ...
Some
On 09.12.20 11:17, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> However, since CentOS Linux 8 (and 9!) will be no more, do we have some
> ideas how to handle this? Do we require all EPEL contributors to obtain
> the developer RHEL subscription (seems like a huge pain)? Do we switch
> to Oracle Linux (only half joking)?
I found it useful to ship the nextcloud package as a module, particularly in
EPEL, but if after multiple years there really are only 12 packages in the repo
and even those may or may not work then that is a pretty clear argument for
eating the sunk cost & abandoning the idea.
-- Christopher
12 matches
Mail list logo
