[EPEL-devel] Revisiting policy for limited arch packages?

Hi all, I just filed https://pagure.io/epel/issue/152 to ask if we should revisit the policy for https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-packaging/#limited_arch_packages This policy seems very similar to the policy we agreed on in https://pagure.io/epel/issue/134 (but haven't documented

[EPEL-devel] Re: Removing playground from package.cfg files

On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 7:54 AM Troy Dawson wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 7:37 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > >> On 26. 01. 22 16:30, Troy Dawson wrote: >> > EPEL 8 Playground is going away. >> > One of the steps in that process [1] is to clean out playground from >> all the >> > various

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing report

The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing: Age URL 0 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-cf4fee5aa6 perl-Image-ExifTool-12.38-1.el8 0 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-1ba918cfc7 strongswan-5.9.5-2.el8 The following

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing report

The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing: Age URL 6 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-246382d5dc golang-1.16.13-2.el7 0 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-6395a45cb3 perl-Image-ExifTool-12.38-1.el7 The following builds

[EPEL-devel] Re: Announcing LLVM Snapshot Packages for Fedora Linux

On Fri, 2021-10-08 at 12:13 +0200, Konrad Kleine wrote: > Dear Fedora packagers, developers and users, > > we have some good news for you: > > We are beginning to build nightly snapshot packages of LLVM for the > latest > versions of Fedora Linux (currently 34, 35 and rawhide) for a growing >

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL 9: Interested in fails to install reports?

On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 4:40 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 7:37 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > Hello EPEL, > > > > would you be interested in automated bugzilla reports for EPEL 9 > packages that > > fail to install in the buildroot? Or is it too soon? > > > > When testing

[EPEL-devel] Re: btrbk-0.31.3-1 missing dependency

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 07:23, Nick Howitt wrote: > > > On 27/01/2022 12:20, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 04:38, Nick Howitt via epel-devel > > > > wrote: > > > > Hi gents, > > It looks like btrbk has been

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL 9: Interested in fails to install reports?

On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 7:37 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > Hello EPEL, > > would you be interested in automated bugzilla reports for EPEL 9 packages that > fail to install in the buildroot? Or is it too soon? > > When testing upcoming changes in c9s we have found out some packages (e.g. >

[EPEL-devel] EPEL 9: Interested in fails to install reports?

Hello EPEL, would you be interested in automated bugzilla reports for EPEL 9 packages that fail to install in the buildroot? Or is it too soon? When testing upcoming changes in c9s we have found out some packages (e.g. ansible-lint) were imported and built in epel9 but they miss runtime

[EPEL-devel] Re: btrbk-0.31.3-1 missing dependency

On 27/01/2022 12:20, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 04:38, Nick Howitt via epel-devel > wrote: Hi gents, It looks like btrbk has been updated to version 0.31.3-1 in EPEL7 from 0.25.1-1 and it has a requires of

[EPEL-devel] Re: btrbk-0.31.3-1 missing dependency

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 04:38, Nick Howitt via epel-devel < epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Hi gents, > It looks like btrbk has been updated to version 0.31.3-1 in EPEL7 from > 0.25.1-1 and it has a requires of btrfs-progs >= 4.12. Unfortunately > btrfs-progs in Centos 7 is still at

[EPEL-devel] btrbk-0.31.3-1 missing dependency

Hi gents, It looks like btrbk has been updated to version 0.31.3-1 in EPEL7 from 0.25.1-1 and it has a requires of btrfs-progs >= 4.12. Unfortunately btrfs-progs in Centos 7 is still at 4.9.1-1 so it is blocking yum. Is this a packaging error in EPEL or a problem at Centos? I don't know if