Following Fabio Valentini tip ,
One thing you *could* try is do a new side-tag and move the builds to
there .
and example of move build :
koji move-build epel8-testing-candidate epel8-build-side-52356
ImageMagick-6.9.12.44-1.el8
On Tue, 2024-04-09 at 11:46 +0200, Antonio T. sagitter wrote:
On Sat, 2023-11-18 at 09:35 +0200, Tuomo Soini wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 21:31:37 +
> Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > Is not an negative feedback, is a side note but I realize some time
> > ago that version with next is bigger than version without next [1]
&
Hi,
Is not an negative feedback, is a side note but I realize some time
ago that version with next is bigger than version without next [1]
therefore we should find a way that the el8 version be greater than the
el8.next version.
[1]
rpmdev-vercmp 1.el8.next 1.el8
1.el8.next > 1.el8
On
> Troy
>
> On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 5:02 AM Sérgio Basto
> wrote:
> > Hi Troy,
> >
> > Yesterday , after telling Neal that we already can build kdenlive
> > on
> > EPEL 9, since rttr package was pushed to stable repo.
> >
> > Neal wrote to
Hi Troy,
Yesterday , after telling Neal that we already can build kdenlive on
EPEL 9, since rttr package was pushed to stable repo.
Neal wrote to you (in KDE channel) :
"I was reminded by sergiomb that kdenlive should be upgraded along with
other KDE apps when you're doing the Plasma upgrade for
On Sun, 2023-01-29 at 10:26 -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> The python-qt5 package in RHEL 8 does not ship the webkit package.
> I'm
> assuming that this is unlikely to be changed since qt5-qtwebkit isn't
> in
> RHEL but is in EPEL.
>
> I think I'm close to producing a python-qt5-epel package
Hi,
Sorry, now subject is correct, the gcc have one patch for the error
above, that is seen on rhel 9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1996330#c14
--
Sérgio M. B.
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1996330#c14
--
Sérgio M. B.
___
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:
On Tue, 2022-11-01 at 10:50 +, Nick Howitt via epel-devel wrote:
> Yesterday, ClamAV announced CVE-2022-37434 as critical
> (https://blog.clamav.net/2022/10/new-packages-for-clamav-01037-01044.
> html). Redhat only seem to classify the issue as Moderate in EL7 -
>
On Tue, 2022-07-05 at 13:00 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 05. 07. 22 12:43, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> > You will need to work with the upstream RHEL team to see if they
> > can update
> > python-attrs
>
> The rule of thumb is that we don't. If you need a certain feature
> from the
> newer
Hi,
looking to
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=22940
and
https://www.attrs.org/en/stable/changelog.html
and
https://git.centos.org/rpms/python-attrs
18.1.0 was release on 2018-05-03 , but centos 8 have 17.04
in 2019-02-25 we have the first update of python-attrs to
On Mon, 2022-06-13 at 07:41 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 6:50 AM Sérgio Basto
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 2022-06-05 at 00:54 +0200, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > Let me start with examples that I get *regularly*: Pagure fails
> > > to
> > &
On Mon, 2022-06-13 at 09:34 +0200, Petr Pisar wrote:
> V Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 12:29:06AM +0100, Sérgio Basto napsal(a):
> > On Sat, 2022-06-11 at 17:25 +, bugzi...@redhat.com wrote:
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095649
> >
> > Hi,
> >
On Sun, 2022-06-05 at 00:54 +0200, Neal Gompa wrote:
> Let me start with examples that I get *regularly*: Pagure fails to
> install from EPEL on RHEL/CentOS/Alma/etc. because python3-markdown
> is
> not available. KDE Plasma fails to install because of a mass of
> missing dependencies.
if epel
On Sat, 2022-06-11 at 17:25 +, bugzi...@redhat.com wrote:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095649
Hi,
for some reason the build on epel 8 to update ImageMagick-6.9.12 from
48 to 50 (
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1972114 )
used
to
> never (cf. libc.so.6 soon to enter its third decade). This just
> sounds like a security fix (?)
>
> It kind of sucks when RHEL7 and RHEL8 cannot run the same binaries.
>
> - Pat
>
>
> On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 12:07 PM Sérgio Basto
> wrote:
> > yes, now it
yes, now its provide libMagickWand-6.Q16.so.7()(64bit) [2] , you need
rebuild your packages
ImageMagick soname bump was approved [0] in EPEL Steering Committee
meeting. and I'm continuing with the process for incompatible upgrades
from step 4 forward [1]. and 81 security bugs will be fixed
[0]
rebuilt it asap
ImageMagick soname bump was approved [0] in EPEL Steering Committee
meeting. and I'm continuing with the process for incompatible upgrades
from step 4 forward [1]. and 81 security bugs will be fixed
[0]
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/epel/epel.2022-04-13-20.00.html
[1]
On Sun, 2022-05-08 at 16:16 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Fri, 2022-04-29 at 14:52 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > A qui, 28-04-2022 às 15:18 +0100, Sérgio Basto escreveu:
> > > On Thu, 2022-04-28 at 07:09 -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
>
On Fri, 2022-04-29 at 14:52 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> A qui, 28-04-2022 às 15:18 +0100, Sérgio Basto escreveu:
> > On Thu, 2022-04-28 at 07:09 -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 2:57 AM Sérgio Basto
> > > wr
A qua, 04-05-2022 às 15:38 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen escreveu:
>
>
> On Wed, 4 May 2022 at 15:31, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > On Wed, 2022-05-04 at 20:25 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > dnf --enablerepo=epel-next-testing --whatprovides "libpoppler-
On Wed, 2022-05-04 at 20:25 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> dnf --enablerepo=epel-next-testing --whatprovides "libpoppler-
> qt5.so*"
> nothing ?!?
I missed repoquery word .
dnf --enablerepo=epel-next-testing repoquery --whatprovides
"libpoppler-qt5.so*"
nothing
On Wed, 2022-05-04 at 08:01 -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 9:31 AM Troy Dawson
> wrote:
> > During the past week qt5 was updated on CentOS Stream 8 and 9 to
> > version 5.15.3. This caused updates to break for KDE users running
> > CentOS Stream 8 and 9. The epel 8 and 9
A qui, 28-04-2022 às 15:18 +0100, Sérgio Basto escreveu:
> On Thu, 2022-04-28 at 07:09 -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 2:57 AM Sérgio Basto
> > wrote:
> > > A qui, 28-04-2022 às 10:48 +0100, Sérgio Basto escreveu:
> >
On Thu, 2022-04-28 at 07:09 -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 2:57 AM Sérgio Basto
> wrote:
> > A qui, 28-04-2022 às 10:48 +0100, Sérgio Basto escreveu:
> > > A qua, 27-04-2022 às 16:58 -0700, Troy Dawson escreveu:
> > > >
> >
A qui, 28-04-2022 às 10:48 +0100, Sérgio Basto escreveu:
> A qua, 27-04-2022 às 16:58 -0700, Troy Dawson escreveu:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 4:38 PM Sérgio Basto
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2022-04-27 at 23:44 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > &
A qua, 27-04-2022 às 16:58 -0700, Troy Dawson escreveu:
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 4:38 PM Sérgio Basto
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2022-04-27 at 23:44 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2022-04-13 at 17:54 -0500, Carl George wrote:
> > > > > This
On Wed, 2022-04-27 at 23:44 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-04-13 at 17:54 -0500, Carl George wrote:
> > > This was approved [0] in today's EPEL Steering Committee meeting.
> > > Please continue with the process for incompatible upgrades from
> >
On Wed, 2022-04-13 at 17:54 -0500, Carl George wrote:
> > This was approved [0] in today's EPEL Steering Committee meeting.
> > Please continue with the process for incompatible upgrades from
> > step 4
> > forward [1].
> >
> > [0]
> >
>
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 3:00 PM Sérgio Basto
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 13:08 -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Apr 8,
On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 13:08 -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 12:46 PM Sérgio Basto
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2022-03-31 at 11:54 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > > This update changes a library soname, which makes it an
> > > > inc
On Thu, 2022-03-31 at 11:54 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > This update changes a library soname, which makes it an
> > incompatible
> > upgrade. It must follow the EPEL incompatible upgrades policy [0].
> > This email can count as step 1 once you reply wi
the maintainers seems unresponsive , the package also isn't updated in
Fedora.
I don't know what is the best to do ...
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tinyproxy/pull-request/1
On Thu, 2022-03-31 at 19:20 +, Dan White via epel-devel wrote:
> Following
>
On Wed, 2022-03-30 at 21:54 -0500, Carl George wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 6:23 PM Sérgio Basto
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > ImageMagick 6.9.12.x have a bunch security fixes since 6.9.10.x .
> > I'd like update ImageMagick (IM) on epel8 with sonam
Hi,
ImageMagick 6.9.12.x have a bunch security fixes since 6.9.10.x .
I'd like update ImageMagick (IM) on epel8 with soname bump .
ImageMagick-6.9.10 last version, have almost 2 years and keep it and
just pull security patches, it would have a lot more work in my
opinion.
so in
On Mon, 2021-12-13 at 22:30 +1100, Frank Crawford wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-12-13 at 06:18 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 6:13 AM Troy Dawson
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 1:58 AM Frank Crawford
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Folks,
> > > >
> > >
On Fri, 2021-10-08 at 10:13 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 09:55, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I see ccache for epel 7 here
> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ccache
> > , but is not availabl
Hi,
I see ccache for epel 7 here https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ccache
, but is not available in repos ... why ?
Thank you,
--
Sérgio M. B.
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On Wed, 2021-10-06 at 20:43 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> Would it be possible to get BuildRequires: %{py3_dist NAME} working
> on
> EPEL7? At first I thought it was sufficient for epel-rpm-macros to
> require python3-rpm-macros, but now I think we may need to override
> the
> definition of
On Sun, 2021-09-19 at 20:08 +0100, Mikhail Ramendik wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Sept 2021 at 23:12, Troy Dawson wrote:
>
> > He needs epel-rpm-macros which provides
> > /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.epel-rpm-macros that has the
> > %ldconfig_scriptlets defined.
> >
>
>
> Thanks a lot!! This resolves
On Fri, 2021-09-17 at 12:35 +0100, Mikhail Ramendik wrote:
> Hello,
>
> A friend of mine is rebuilding an EPEL package (namely llvm9.0) from
> source for CentOS 7 on aarch64. The aarch64 build is not in the EPEL
> repo, probably because RHEL7 for aarch64 is out of support.
>
> WIth an unmodified
Hi,
In practice, after bug [1] I decided rollback update on epel 7 with one
epoch bump [2]. Now after one year and half and after testing, we know
if we removing one line it works, so I want rollback the rollback and
update debmirror on epel7 to support Ubuntu 20.04 ...
the question is, can I
Hi,
Sorry, this may be a little Off-topic but we notice that lame package
from RHEL 8 (1) is not shipping lame package with binaries and in this
case lame-devel is provided along with lame-libs , can we apply the
same rules ? is completely a different situation ?
(1)
On Wed, 2021-05-26 at 13:00 +0200, Petr Pisar wrote:
> V Wed, May 26, 2021 at 10:30:54AM +0100, Sérgio Basto napsal(a):
> > fedpkg clone debhelper
> > cd debhelper
> > fedpkg srpm && mock -r epel-8-x86_64 --no-clean --rebuild
> > debhelper-
> > 13
On Wed, 2021-05-26 at 13:00 +0200, Petr Pisar wrote:
> V Wed, May 26, 2021 at 10:30:54AM +0100, Sérgio Basto napsal(a):
> > fedpkg clone debhelper
> > cd debhelper
> > fedpkg srpm && mock -r epel-8-x86_64 --no-clean --rebuild debhelper-
> > 13.3.4-1.fc35.src.rp
Hi,
fedpkg clone debhelper
cd debhelper
fedpkg srpm && mock -r epel-8-x86_64 --no-clean --rebuild debhelper-
13.3.4-1.fc35.src.rpm
I can build the package in _all_ others branches but in epel8 ends with
"Initialization of state variables in list context currently forbidden
at
On Sat, 2021-05-22 at 11:57 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 06:32:25AM -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
> > On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 4:20 AM Stephen John Smoogen <
> > smo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> ...snip...
>
> Here's a scratch build of 1.4.11, but I bet it won't work as many of
product=Red Hat Enterprise
> Linux 8=po4a=CentOS Stream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959750
Thanks
> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 6:13 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > Since this commit [1] I need po4a >= 0.59 to build dpkg , but [2],
> > po4a
Hi,
Since this commit [1] I need po4a >= 0.59 to build dpkg , but [2],
po4a is in powertools repo [3] , can we do something to update it ?
Thank you.
[1]
https://github.com/guillemj/dpkg/commit/a74a91310260efe55cc986506fe208ae2776a45a
[2]
https://git.centos.org/rpms/po4a/
import
Hi ,
Fedpkg wrote "Create package.cfg to specify build targets to build. "
, where I can read more about this subject , should I add package.cfg
to the package ? can package.cfg be in master branch and in Fedora
branches ? etc .
Thank you.
--
Sérgio M. B.
On Thu, 2020-06-25 at 09:15 -0400, Scott Talbert wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2020, Nicolas Kovacs wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've been using the nifty apt-cacher-ng package cache successfully
> > on Debian.
> >
> > Now I'd like to run it on our local server running CentOS 7. I
> > installed the
> >
Hi,
Guideline page needing clarification:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging
Explanation
in this wiki page is not clear that on EPEL8 we don't need anymore the
scriptlets of Icon Cache, mimeinfo and Desktop databases
Thank you
--
Sérgio M. B.
On Tue, 2020-06-16 at 07:36 -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 8:21 PM Sérgio Basto
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2020-06-15 at 10:04 -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
> > > RHEL 8.2 and CentOS 8.2 have an updated qt5. This updated qt5
> > > allowed
> > &
On Mon, 2020-06-15 at 10:04 -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
> RHEL 8.2 and CentOS 8.2 have an updated qt5. This updated qt5
> allowed
> us to update the KDE Plasma Desktop in EPEL8. We are not at the
> following versions.
>
> qt5 - 5.12
> plasma - 5.18 [1]
> kf5 - 5.68 / 19.12
> apps - 5.18 / 19.12
>
On Wed, 2020-06-03 at 20:49 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 07:13:06AM -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 8:14 AM Felix Schwarz <
> > fschw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Am 01.06.20 um 17:25 schrieb Troy Dawson:
> > > > I was having a similar
On Sun, 2020-02-09 at 06:19 -0500, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
> Is this the right list to ask about the status of ClamAV 0.102.1 and
> when it will be released?
> If this is not the right list please tell which list I to which I
> should direct this question.
> Thanks
I'm trying to update it, but
On Fri, 2019-11-15 at 22:31 +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-11-14 at 18:33 +, Paul Howarth wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 15:08:32 +0100
> > Steve Traylen wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >
> > > Last couple of days the epe
On Thu, 2019-11-14 at 18:33 +, Paul Howarth wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 15:08:32 +0100
> Steve Traylen wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > Last couple of days the epel8 branch requests have been processed
> > okay. Thanks
> >
> > However when you then try and build something it results in
> >
I wonder if we can request the branch and be added as co-maintainer ?
On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 13:38 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> So this came up in the last EPEL meeting:
> bugzilla query -s NEW -t 'epel8' --outputformat "%{id}:
> %{component}:
> %{summary}" | sort | less
>
>
> Most of
If it helps Copr (and mock) use centos 7 [1]
[1]
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/blob/master/mock-core-configs/etc/mock/epel-7-x86_64.cfg
On Sun, 2019-08-11 at 10:44 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> See for example:
>
>
On Fri, 2019-04-12 at 09:36 +0200, Danny Smit wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm looking for a fix in postgis, which seems to be fixed already in
> postgis-2.0.7-2.el7.
>
> However that package seems to be 'stuck' in the epel7-testing
> repository for a long time:
>
On Tue, 2018-10-30 at 20:57 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> I'm getting this:
>
> DEBUG util.py:439: Error: Package: cairo-1.15.12-3.el7.ppc64 (build)
> DEBUG util.py:439: Requires: libEGL.so.1()(64bit)
> DEBUG util.py:439: Error: Package: cairo-1.15.12-3.el7.ppc64 (build)
> DEBUG
://www.softwarecollections.org/en/scls/rhscl/devtoolset-4/
Forwarded Message
From: Sérgio Basto
Reply-to: Development discussions related to Fedora
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
Subject: [includepkgs=devtoolset*] Re: Cannot find -latomic when
building for epel7
On Tue, 2018-05-22 at 04:10 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, 2018-04-28 at 07:02 +0100, Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
> > From Fedora EPEL 6 updates-testing report Tuesday, 24 April 2018:
> >
> > > The following Fedora EPEL 6
On Tue, 2018-05-22 at 11:05 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 21 May 2018 at 23:18, Sérgio Basto <ser...@serjux.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Latest php 5.4 release was in 2015-Sep-04 ( php-5.4.45.tar.gz )
> > 3 years ago ...
> > We will have el 7 until 2024
Hello,
On Sat, 2018-04-28 at 07:02 +0100, Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
> From Fedora EPEL 6 updates-testing report Tuesday, 24 April 2018:
>
> > The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing:
>
> ...
> > The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 6 updates-
> > testing
> >
configure . And I
don't need to build any package .
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sunday, April 22, 2018, 3:51:00 PM EDT,
>
On Sun, 2018-04-22 at 09:46 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> > To simplify my concerns, what is easy way to install mod_jk ? on
> > epel 7and
> > 6 BTW
>
> I went through similar searching for my @dayjob awhile back, ended
> up
> swi
On Sun, 2018-04-22 at 11:55 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 22.04.2018 um 02:52 schrieb Sérgio Basto:
> > I needed mod_jk for some tomcat applications and it was one
> > adventure
> > because last build of mod_jk is about 2015 and jpp project died in
> > 2009
>
&
On Sun, 2018-04-22 at 11:55 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 22.04.2018 um 02:52 schrieb Sérgio Basto:
> > I needed mod_jk for some tomcat applications and it was one
> > adventure
> > because last build of mod_jk is about 2015 and jpp project died in
> > 2009
>
&
Sorry just some more notes:
http://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/6Server/en/JBCS/SRPMS
/
for example these jbcs-httpd24 , doesn't make sense because el6 haveapache 2.2
https://access.redhat.com/solutions/3357951
On Sun, 2018-04-22 at 02:23 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> meanwh
meanwhile upstream updated to 1.2.43 [1] when last version found in
rpms is 1.2.41
[1]
https://github.com/apache/tomcat-connectors/releases/tag/JK_1_2_43
On Sun, 2018-04-22 at 01:52 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Hello,
>
> First my notes:
> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBCS
Hello,
First my notes:
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBCS-119?_sscc=t
http://ftp.riken.jp/Linux/redhat/ftp.redhat.com/linux/enterprise/6Server/en/JBEAP/SRPMS/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366581
https://developers.redhat.com/products/eap/download/
On Tue, 2018-03-27 at 13:46 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2018-03-27 at 11:53 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > > Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 2018-03-26 at 15:33 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > > > > S
On Mon, 2018-03-26 at 15:33 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 16:15 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > > I'd be ok with an epel7-only python3-sip
> > >
> > > Since it is a new package (not a branch of an existing one),
e sip-qt5 provides and obsolete sip (4.14.6-4.el7) ?
As a side note for epel-devel we also need python3-sip which is not
provide by el7, since only epel-7 have python3, isn't it ?
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 2:02 PM, Sérgio Basto <ser...@serjux.com>
> wrote:
> > new suggestion for new sip:
On Mon, 2018-03-12 at 17:30 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> There is a security update waiting in epel-testing for 0.99.4.
>
> I have tested it in my setup and it looks to be working but it needs
> more testing
>
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-7e91105260
BTW we
On Sat, 2018-03-03 at 13:20 -0500, Christopher Brown wrote:
> On 02/24/2018 02:15 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > On Sat, 2018-02-24 at 17:45 +, Christopher Brown wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > In trying to install trojita, I got the following error:
>
On Sat, 2018-02-24 at 17:45 +, Christopher Brown wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In trying to install trojita, I got the following error:
>
> $ sudo yum install trojita
> Loaded plugins: langpacks
> Resolving Dependencies
> --> Running transaction check
> ---> Package trojita.x86_64 0:0.7-4.el7 will be
On Qua, 2017-04-19 at 15:16 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> > ah , I built po4a to build dpkg on epel7 , but in fact po4a was
> > added
> > to centos 7 some moments before (I don't know if in RHEL7)
>
> It is. It's in rhel7-server-optional. Note that CentOS doesn't do any
> of
> the channel
On Qua, 2017-04-19 at 12:03 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On 04/14/2017 12:05 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> >
> > OK something for people to help with:
> >
> > There is a po4a package which over-rides the version that is in
> > RHEL-7
> > optional. It needs to be removed from EPEL and packages
Hi,
I build for epel 7 several Debian tools that may allow build deb
packages, now I can build some debs in epel 7, If someone is
interested in testing let me have some feedback .
po-debconf-1.0.16-8.nmu3.el7
smokeqt-4.14.3-7.el7
smokegen-4.14.3-6.el7
perl-Qt-4.14.3-5.el7
Hi,
perl-Git-Wrapper.spec doesn't build in EPEL7 because :
BuildRequires: perl(:VERSION) >= 5.6
Ends in:
DEBUG util.py:435: No matching package to install: 'perl(:VERSION) >= 5.6'
perl -v :
This is perl 5, version 16, subversion 3 (v5.16.3)
from:
On Seg, 2016-08-29 at 18:06 +0200, Honza Silhan wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Orion Poplawski <or...@cora.nwra.com
> > wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> >
> > On 08/26/2016 12:26 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sex, 2016-07-01 at 1
On Sex, 2016-07-01 at 13:04 -0400, Honza Šilhan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> DNF is in EPEL for more than one year, unfortunately there was still
> the old
> DNF-0.6.4
> version. Over that time in DNF were implemented a lot of great
> features and
> plenty of bugs
> have been fixed. DNF (especially its
Hi,
%{python2_sitelib} doesn't exist on epel6 ?
from https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sergiomb/builds_fo
r_Stable_Releases/epel-6-i386/00173942-subdownloader/build.log.gz
I got:
RPM build errors:
File must begin with "/": %{python2_sitelib}/subdownloader
which means
Hi, epel List
In bug 1134624 [1] someone asked to build po4a for EPEL 7.
I miss some reading and po4a is only need to be build for ppc64 ,
because in meantime CentOS built it, but only for epel 7 not for 6 and
according Dominik Mierzejewski on comment #23 ... is part of CentOS
main distribution,
87 matches
Mail list logo
