On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Michael Schwendt <[email protected]> wrote: > I've filed lots of -1 in bodhi for EPEL 5, and that doesn't cover all issues. > > Untested packages: > > Apparently, there are packagers, who mark their updates "stable" without > even having tried to install the packages while they were being offered > in epel-testing. This affects new packages as well as updates. It gives > the smell of treating EPEL as just another build target and repo to dump > builds at. In one case, the packager has admitted he doesn't have an > installation to test with. At least using a compatible CentOS > installation on a multi-boot machine ought to be mandatory. > > The RubyGems stack: > > There are several rubygem* (and ruby*) packages, which suffer from > unresolvable dependencies. Dunno how complete repoclosure is on EL 5 > (e.g. with regard to Obsoletes), but it's available: > > $ sudo yum -y install yum-utils > $ repoclosure | tee el5-broken-deps.log > $ > > Missing rebuilds: > > At least "libevent" has had a SONAME bump in the base dist. > Corresponding rebuilds of packages in EPEL 5 are missing. > > _______________________________________________ > epel-devel-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list >
Michael, thanks for the filings. We're aware of many of the rubygem issues, and have bugs opened to fix them. I was playing with repoclosure a couple nights ago on EPEL and found quite a few dep issues, and was concerned that I was doing something wrong with it. Perhaps I wasn't. EPEL Team -- Should we start planning another bug day? It certainly is a goal to at least have the stable repo not have dep issues. stahnma _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
