Re: [EPEL-devel] [Proposal] Converge EPEL and CBS

2015-09-24 18:58 GMT+02:00 Stephen John Smoogen : > On 24 September 2015 at 10:40, Haïkel wrote: >> Looks like we do have some progress on that topic :) >> >> So plan B would be: >> 1. automate EPEL rebuilds in CBS >> 2. have CI run automated test

Re: [EPEL-devel] [Proposal] Converge EPEL and CBS

On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 08:45:32 PM Karsten Wade wrote: > On 09/22/2015 11:35 AM, Dave Johansen wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Remi Collet > > > > wrote: > >> Le 21/09/2015 16:12, Haïkel a écrit : > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Since the CentOS acquihire,

Re: [EPEL-devel] [Proposal] Converge EPEL and CBS

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 08:45:32PM -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: > AIUI, the concern is that what is labeled/supported by the CentOS > Project as 'CentOS' needs to go through the CentOS Project QA system. > We simply cannot blindly accept builds from outside of the CentOS > builders just on say-so.

Re: [EPEL-devel] [Proposal] Converge EPEL and CBS

On 22 Sep 2015, at 8:35 PM, Dave Johansen wrote: > +1. I agree that using EPEL rather than trying to replace it is a much better > solution. +1 why "fix" something that is not broken signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [EPEL-devel] [Proposal] Converge EPEL and CBS

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/23/2015 09:49 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 23 September 2015 at 10:31, Matthew Miller > wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 08:45:32PM -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: >>> AIUI, the concern is that what is

Re: [EPEL-devel] [Proposal] Converge EPEL and CBS

On Monday, September 21, 2015 08:58:21 PM Haïkel wrote: > 2015-09-21 19:46 GMT+02:00 Kevin Fenzi : > > On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:12:07 +0200 > > > > Haïkel wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Since the CentOS acquihire, there was a lot of discussion about > >>

Re: [EPEL-devel] [Proposal] Converge EPEL and CBS

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Remi Collet wrote: > Le 21/09/2015 16:12, Haïkel a écrit : > > Hi, > > > > Since the CentOS acquihire, there was a lot of discussion about EPEL's > future. > > Since the FOSDEM meetup between Fedora/CentOS folks, there was little > >

Re: [EPEL-devel] [Proposal] Converge EPEL and CBS

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 20:58:21 +0200 Haïkel wrote: > 2015-09-21 19:46 GMT+02:00 Kevin Fenzi : > > Which tickets do you mean here? They are only rebuilding some > > packages, but not others or? > > Any tickets filed against EPEL, for instance, if a bug

Re: [EPEL-devel] [Proposal] Converge EPEL and CBS

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/22/2015 12:18 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > Also, this would probibly be some kind of big deal to some > people who like that EPEL is built against rhel. > Personally, I don't think it matters, but it would have to > be

Re: [EPEL-devel] [Proposal] Converge EPEL and CBS

2015-09-22 21:18 GMT+02:00 Dennis Gilmore : > On Monday, September 21, 2015 08:58:21 PM Haïkel wrote: >> 2015-09-21 19:46 GMT+02:00 Kevin Fenzi : >> > On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:12:07 +0200 >> > >> > Haïkel wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >>

Re: [EPEL-devel] [Proposal] Converge EPEL and CBS

Le 21/09/2015 16:12, Haïkel a écrit : > Hi, > > Since the CentOS acquihire, there was a lot of discussion about EPEL's future. > Since the FOSDEM meetup between Fedora/CentOS folks, there was little > progress on that topic Just enable EPEL in CBS, and that's all. Remi. P.S. and explain to

Re: [EPEL-devel] [Proposal] Converge EPEL and CBS

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:12:07 +0200 Haïkel wrote: > Hi, > > Since the CentOS acquihire, there was a lot of discussion about > EPEL's future. Since the FOSDEM meetup between Fedora/CentOS folks, > there was little progress on that topic > > After a discussion with a

Re: [EPEL-devel] [Proposal] Converge EPEL and CBS

2015-09-21 19:46 GMT+02:00 Kevin Fenzi : > On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:12:07 +0200 > Haïkel wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Since the CentOS acquihire, there was a lot of discussion about >> EPEL's future. Since the FOSDEM meetup between Fedora/CentOS folks, >> there