[EPEL-devel] Re: epel8-playground and centos-stream?
On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 11:58:31AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > So, question: when say RHEL8.1beta comes out. Is the Centos 8 stream > updating that? (ie, has all beta changes and continues from there?). > I think we need to be very careful with beta's. If we can get security > updates via centos 8 stream then great, but if not, that makes a known > pool of insecure software. :( As I understand it, CentOS Stream will get security updates (because no one wants a big pool of insecure software, and it's not good for users), but that the significant, expensive work that the Red Hat security team and Red Hat developers do to develop fixes should be available to paying customers first. That seems reasonable to me. Also, of course, many such fixes have embargo dates and _can't_ be made public early. The mechanisms for doing this aren't actually built yet. -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader ___ 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: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
[EPEL-devel] Re: epel8-playground and centos-stream?
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 11:40:19AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 6:13 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 5:54 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > > > > After the announcement today of centos-stream, I wonder if it would make > > > sense to move epel8-playground to build against that instead of the > > > latest rhel8 release? > > > > > > It would make playground less usefull for testing new radical changes > > > against the current stable point release, but on the other hand, the > > > centos stream will become the next stable point release, so it would > > > allow people to test against that and get changes ready that they could > > > then push in after the next stable point release landed? > > > > > > What do folks think? Bad idea, good idea? > > I think that makes good sense; it will provide a guarantee of early > notice when an upcoming RHEL release might introduce a problematic > change (intentionally or otherwise) and provides Red Hat with feedback > and an opportunity to fix it before RHEL releases. It will also make > our minor release merge windows easier, since we should not get any > major surprises hitting only at Beta or GA. As mentioned downstream, if we want to know if epel builds ok/breaks by changes in the stream we might instead setup a koschei instance pointing to centos stream? Since as Tony indicated we don't mass rebuild or know when something would break there. > > If we decide *not* to do this, I think we need to at least have a > policy of updating the buildroot for EPEL8-playground to include the > RHEL minor release beta tree as a lesser version of the same process > as above. So, question: when say RHEL8.1beta comes out. Is the Centos 8 stream updating that? (ie, has all beta changes and continues from there?). I think we need to be very careful with beta's. If we can get security updates via centos 8 stream then great, but if not, that makes a known pool of insecure software. :( kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
[EPEL-devel] Re: FreeRDP version updates.
Heya, Thanks very much for getting back to me with my query, I've not dealt much with package management in this manner prior, however it's because I've never ran in to an issue like this myself in the past either just being a user of CentOS and updating. So I do apologise for this, but everything in the past has worked flawlessly and I've never needed to bother, if you understand me correctly.. "Dont fix it, if it ain't broken" metaphorically speaking.. Did you have packages which were updated and you were not aware it would happen? -Yes kind of, I knew they would be updated, but I did not realise they would cause so much further issues. Did you have packages which were not updated but you need them to be? -No. Did you have packages which installed which are broken? -No -However this issue is quite a spread one, APACHE Guacamole does require the freeRDP-1x versions in order to enable the utilisation of RDP connections, so APACHE guacamole needs an update too because FreeRDP version 2x has had such a change around they are still catching up developing ways and means of utilizing version 2x of FreeRDP. For this reason, I never even wanted to update to CentOS8 yet, but over the last month after doing an recompile and test VM install of Apache guacamole and then 'yum update' that rather then the FreeRDP 1x versions being used 2x has been placed within the packages which leaves me without the use of RDP. VNC, SSH connections are fine within APACHE guacamole. I traced it back to noticing that version 2 is now being used, so resorted to using my initial .iso as my yum package repository but am being left without freerdp-plugins-1.0.2. Because it's not listed within the install .iso repo (only freerdp, -devel, -libs) These are the updated versions being used after an yim update is initiated, which I assume would happen but was not prepared for the following issues rising from, doing said update. freerdp-2.0.0-1.rc4.el7.x86_64.rpm2019-08-22 21:2497K freerdp-devel-2.0.0-1.rc4.el7.i686.rpm2019-08-22 21:47125K freerdp-devel-2.0.0-1.rc4.el7.x86_64.rpm2019-08-22 21:24125K freerdp-libs-2.0.0-1.rc4.el7.i686.rpm2019-08-22 21:47735K freerdp-libs-2.0.0-1.rc4.el7.x86_64.rpm Would it be feasible to place within the EPEL7 repository the: FreeRDP-1.0.2.rc4.el7.i686.rpm FreeRDP-1.0.2.rc4.el7.x86_64.rpm, FreeRDP-devel-1.0.2.rc4.el7.i686.rpm FreeRDP-devel-1.0.2.rc4.el7.x86_64.rpm FreeRDP-libs-1.0.2.rc4.el7.i686.rpm FreeRDP-libs-1.0.2.rc4.el7.x86_64.rpm FreeRDP-plugins-1.0.2.rc4.el7.i686.rpm FreeRDP-plugins-1.0.2.rc4.el7.x86_64.rpm And then rename them too: FreeRDP1-1.0.2.rc4.el7.i686.rpm FreeRDP1-1.0.2.rc4.el7.x86_64.rpm, FreeRDP1-devel-1.0.2.rc4.el7.i686.rpm FreeRDP1-devel-1.0.2.rc4.el7.x86_64.rpm FreeRDP1-libs-1.0.2.rc4.el7.i686.rpm FreeRDP1-libs-1.0.2.rc4.el7.x86_64.rpm FreeRDP1-plugins-1.0.2.rc4.el7.x86_64.rpm FreeRDP1-plugins-1.0.2.rc4.el7.x86_64.rpm Which hopefully will allow future choice and further usability, afterall EPEL stands for Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux, I'd be happy to maintain them to the best if my ability in order to contribute towards the community and I'm sure it would assist many other facing my current issue which they have yet to run in to possibly. I've also noticed that the FreeRDP packages themselves are not directly installed by the EPEL, infact they reside on the .iso issued by the CentOS commumity and I should have spoken to them first rather then EPEL community directly, it was an base assumption they came from you guys after my initial yum update from a bare basic minimal install after inserting EPEL into my repo list. -Can the FreeRDP version 1x rpm's listed above be placed within the EPEL repo and rather then just be called FreeRDP > FreeRDP1- to represent an older version that user may call upon if needed. I'm just trying now to meet a global solution that's viable for people to utilise without forking, or creating further issues. Kind regards, Darren Wise On 5 October 2019 16:11:28 BST, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 at 06:23, Darren Wise wrote: >> >> Hey folks, >> >> Whom could I speak to about an EPEL package version update regarding >FreeRDP (freerdp-1.0.2-15.el7.x86_64, freerdp-libs-1.0.2-15.el7.x86_64, >freerdp-devel-1.0.2-15.el7.x86_64, freerdp-plugins-1.0.2-15.el7.x86_64) >verses the FreeRDP version 2.0 variants. >> >> The reason I asking is because I was relying on this version >currently within CentOS7 EPEL repository in order to develop for APACHE >Guacamole, however FreeRDP2.0 is not noticed when installed, the EPEL >update occurred (must have been) around the middle of September? 13th >and after? >> >> I also noticed that multiple versions are not maintained, could I >please be pointed to somewhere I could get a complete mirror of the >EPEL repository and I'd be happy to maintain myself online? >> -Maybe I could start an repository online funded by myself which >maintains multiple versions? >> > >Sorry I
[EPEL-devel] Re: FreeRDP version updates.
On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 11:22:59AM +0100, Darren Wise wrote: > I also noticed that multiple versions are not maintained, could I please > be pointed to somewhere I could get a complete mirror of the EPEL > repository and I'd be happy to maintain myself online? -Maybe I could > start an repository online funded by myself which maintains multiple > versions? So, we're not quite ready for this yet in EPEL, but allowing multiple versions of packages to be maintained within the same, official repository is what the Modularity feature in Fedora and now RHEL 8 is for. Would you be interested in maintaining the versions you need as part of that? In the meantime, let me direct you to Copr, our system for building and offering package repositories with a very low barrier to entry. Check it out at https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/. This would be a great place to start, and then once we have modular EPEL up and running you could migrate packages to that. -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader ___ 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: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
[EPEL-devel] Re: FreeRDP version updates.
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 at 06:23, Darren Wise wrote: > > Hey folks, > > Whom could I speak to about an EPEL package version update regarding FreeRDP > (freerdp-1.0.2-15.el7.x86_64, freerdp-libs-1.0.2-15.el7.x86_64, > freerdp-devel-1.0.2-15.el7.x86_64, freerdp-plugins-1.0.2-15.el7.x86_64) > verses the FreeRDP version 2.0 variants. > > The reason I asking is because I was relying on this version currently within > CentOS7 EPEL repository in order to develop for APACHE Guacamole, however > FreeRDP2.0 is not noticed when installed, the EPEL update occurred (must have > been) around the middle of September? 13th and after? > > I also noticed that multiple versions are not maintained, could I please be > pointed to somewhere I could get a complete mirror of the EPEL repository and > I'd be happy to maintain myself online? > -Maybe I could start an repository online funded by myself which maintains > multiple versions? > Sorry I am not parsing what you have problems with. Did you have packages which were updated and you were not aware it would happen? Did you have packages which were not updated but you need them to be? Did you have packages which installed which are broken? [It is ok if the answer to all of those are 'yes, and this is what I meant..' ] The complete mirror of the EPEL repository is whatever is in the repository at any time. If you are needing older versions of packages, you need to go spelunking through the koji.fedoraproject.org build system to find older versions of the packages. I wish there was an easier way to make this available.. but the tools are meant to do one thing well (take a source code, build it and put it ftp.) versus multiple things well. > Chances are I'm posting in the wrong place, but for me, this is an EPEL > development I was not expecting heh. > > Kind regards, > Darren Wise___ > 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: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org -- Stephen J Smoogen. ___ 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: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
[EPEL-devel] FreeRDP version updates.
Hey folks, Whom could I speak to about an EPEL package version update regarding FreeRDP (freerdp-1.0.2-15.el7.x86_64, freerdp-libs-1.0.2-15.el7.x86_64, freerdp-devel-1.0.2-15.el7.x86_64, freerdp-plugins-1.0.2-15.el7.x86_64) verses the FreeRDP version 2.0 variants. The reason I asking is because I was relying on this version currently within CentOS7 EPEL repository in order to develop for APACHE Guacamole, however FreeRDP2.0 is not noticed when installed, the EPEL update occurred (must have been) around the middle of September? 13th and after? I also noticed that multiple versions are not maintained, could I please be pointed to somewhere I could get a complete mirror of the EPEL repository and I'd be happy to maintain myself online? -Maybe I could start an repository online funded by myself which maintains multiple versions? Chances are I'm posting in the wrong place, but for me, this is an EPEL development I was not expecting heh. Kind regards, Darren Wise___ 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: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
