[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing report
The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing: Age URL 9 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-e44d8312da rclone-1.53.3-1.el8 7 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-37ef75d1ce chromium-87.0.4280.88-1.el8 1 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-c82583d07e pngcheck-2.4.0-5.el8 The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing cacti-1.2.16-1.el8 cacti-spine-1.2.16-1.el8 gfal2-2.18.2-2.el8 mbedtls-2.16.9-1.el8 mock-2.8-1.el8 python-colcon-bundle-0.1.0-1.el8 python-colcon-lcov-result-0.5.0-1.el8 python-deprecated-1.2.10-1.el8 python-kubernetes-11.0.0-6.el8 Details about builds: cacti-1.2.16-1.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2020-29c3568efc) An rrd based graphing tool Update Information: Update to 1.2.16 Release notes: https://www.cacti.net/release_notes.php?version=1.2.16 ChangeLog: * Mon Dec 14 2020 Morten Stevens - 1.2.16-1 - Update to 1.2.16 cacti-spine-1.2.16-1.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2020-29c3568efc) Threaded poller for Cacti written in C Update Information: Update to 1.2.16 Release notes: https://www.cacti.net/release_notes.php?version=1.2.16 ChangeLog: * Mon Dec 14 2020 Morten Stevens - 1.2.16-1 - Update to 1.2.16 gfal2-2.18.2-2.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2020-5b569bb89f) Grid file access library 2.0 Update Information: Upgrade to upstream release 2.18.2 ChangeLog: * Tue Dec 15 2020 Michal Simon - 2.18.2-1 - Upgrade to upstream release 2.18.2 mbedtls-2.16.9-1.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2020-fe42686452) Light-weight cryptographic and SSL/TLS library Update Information: Update to 2.16.9 Release notes: https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/releases/tag/v2.16.9 ChangeLog: * Mon Dec 14 2020 Morten Stevens - 2.16.9-1 - Update to 2.6.19 * Thu Oct 15 2020 Morten Stevens - 2.16.8-2 - Drop support for pkcs11 and zlib mock-2.8-1.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2020-e8977f0629) Builds packages inside chroots Update Information: fix use of nspawn https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/pull/679 Mock v2.7 Release notes: https://github.com/rpm-software- management/mock/wiki/Release-Notes-2.7 - bootstrap: copy-in katello CA pem file if exists - early error when bootstrap is off and external buildrequires are detected (msu...@redhat.com) - hotfix preexec_fn traceback on RHEL 8 s390x (issue 653) - introduce external buildrequires (msu...@redhat.com) - add rpkg spec preprocessing capability (cl...@fedoraproject.org) - sign plugin: don't ignore signing command failure - don't setsid() twice with --shell - better logging when dynamic BR detected (msu...@redhat.com) - do not TB if rpmbuild fails with exit code 11 (msu...@redhat.com) - fix addrepo when repo is missing (markus.linn...@gmail.com) - own the cheat directory - Allow percent-sign in config_opts['resultdir'] - add a new "postupdate" hook (dture...@redhat.com) - log mock's NVR ChangeLog: * Tue Dec 15 2020 Pavel Raiskup 2.8-1 - fix use of nspawn (#678) (awill...@redhat.com) - file_util: Improve an error message (tbae...@redhat.com) * Mon Nov 30 2020 Pavel Raiskup 2.7-1 - bootstrap: copy-in katello CA pem file if exists - early error when bootstrap is off and external buildrequires are detected (msu...@redhat.com) - hotfix preexec_fn traceback on RHEL 8 s390x (issue 653) - introduce external buildrequires (msu...@redhat.com) - add rpkg spec preprocessing capability (cl...@fedoraproject.org) - sign plugin: don't i
[EPEL-devel] Re: Epel 8 (and 9) build against what?
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 02:36:40PM -0700, Jeff Sheltren wrote: > Is nobody concerned with the implications (or irony?) of building an open > source project on top of a proprietary platform? I assume you mean RHEL. RHEL is not a proprietary platform — it's silly to call it that. Look at Rocky Linux and CloudLinux. And, you know, the Oracle one. And Amazon Linux. And all of the source code is 100% available. But also, ironic or not, EPEL is already built on RHEL. -- 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: Epel 8 (and 9) build against what?
Am 15.12.20 um 18:02 schrieb Matthew Miller: On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 05:43:28PM +0100, Pavel Raiskup wrote: Notable problem if we switched from CentOS to RHEL in Mock configuration is that several build dependencies will be missing. RHEL 8 doesn't e.g. ship e.g. the *-devel packages (this problem, if I understand it correctly, is slowly worked-around by CentOS-only packages). As I understand it, these are available as part of "CodeReady Linux Builder" with the developer subscription. https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/8/html/package_manifest/codereadylinuxbuilder-repository not all - there are still missing devel packages (intentionally). -- Leon ___ 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: Epel 8 (and 9) build against what?
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 11:00:15AM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Regarding the recent announcement of CentOS 8 flipping to CentOS Stream - > What will be the configs for building EPEL 8? > I mean mock configs? And I ask as Mock maintainer - because I have no idea. I don't think you need to panic and try and decide something now. I'd stick with the way it is now, and perhaps revisit it in 6months or so when things might be more clear. > Are we going to build EPEL 8 against CentOS stream? What will happen when > CentOS stream flip to RHEL 9 based content > > https://wiki.centos.org/FAQ/CentOSStream#What_happens_when_CentOS_Stream_switches_from_RHEL_8_to_RHEL_9_based_content.3F > ? There will still be centos8 stream for a year... 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: Epel 8 (and 9) build against what?
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 2:16 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Dne 15. 12. 20 v 16:44 Matthew Miller napsal(a): > > Or just the no-cost RHEL developer subscription? > > From Terms and conditions: > https://developers.redhat.com/terms-and-conditions > > ``` > Examples of such violations include, but are not limited to ... > * using the services provided under the Program for a production > installation, > ``` > > Is Copr production installation? > > Even if we solve this for Copr (yeah doable) then it is huge complication > for 3rd party ISV as anyone building localy > package for RHEL on top of EPEL will need Developer subscription. :( > > > Is nobody concerned with the implications (or irony?) of building an open source project on top of a proprietary platform? -Jeff ___ 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: Epel 8 (and 9) build against what?
Dne 15. 12. 20 v 16:44 Matthew Miller napsal(a): > Or just the no-cost RHEL developer subscription? From Terms and conditions: https://developers.redhat.com/terms-and-conditions ``` Examples of such violations include, but are not limited to ... * using the services provided under the Program for a production installation, ``` Is Copr production installation? Even if we solve this for Copr (yeah doable) then it is huge complication for 3rd party ISV as anyone building localy package for RHEL on top of EPEL will need Developer subscription. :( -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCA Red Hat, Associate Manager ABRT/Copr, #brno, #fedora-buildsys ___ 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: Epel 8 (and 9) build against what?
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 at 10:45, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 08:30:21AM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > Honestly I don't know how to deal with regular EPEL-8 development after > > this. EPEL is going to add an epel-next which they would ask for > additional > > targets in mock for. However that does not fix building against the > regular > > EPEL-8 target. I expect it will depend on what programs come up for > > development in the coming year and if the new -devel RHEL UBI images can > be > > used for mock. > > Or just the no-cost RHEL developer subscription? It seems like this is a > good use case for that, if it could be made easy enough that it isn't > painful for EPEL packagers. > > > Currently a mock -r epel-8 can be done on a EL7/EL8 and any active Fedora. It does not need any passwords or config setup.. just run a command. The developer subscription requires additional setup to point to the EPEL config to the access.redhat.com servers and similar things. It is easier to point the configs to the Springdale or similar repos. This may change sometime in the future.. -- 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] Re: Epel 8 (and 9) build against what?
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 at 12:02, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 05:43:28PM +0100, Pavel Raiskup wrote: > > Notable problem if we switched from CentOS to RHEL in Mock configuration > > is that several build dependencies will be missing. RHEL 8 doesn't e.g. > > ship e.g. the *-devel packages (this problem, if I understand it > correctly, > > is slowly worked-around by CentOS-only packages). > > As I understand it, these are available as part of "CodeReady Linux > Builder" > with the developer subscription. > > > https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/8/html/package_manifest/codereadylinuxbuilder-repository > > They are not. There are still quite a few -devel and similar packages that are BuildRoot only but part of top level packages. These are currently gotten to us by a case-by-case tooth pulling exercise into the CentOS Devel repository (which si not the same as code-ready) -- 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] Re: Epel 8 (and 9) build against what?
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 05:43:28PM +0100, Pavel Raiskup wrote: > Notable problem if we switched from CentOS to RHEL in Mock configuration > is that several build dependencies will be missing. RHEL 8 doesn't e.g. > ship e.g. the *-devel packages (this problem, if I understand it correctly, > is slowly worked-around by CentOS-only packages). As I understand it, these are available as part of "CodeReady Linux Builder" with the developer subscription. https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/8/html/package_manifest/codereadylinuxbuilder-repository -- 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: Epel 8 (and 9) build against what?
On Tuesday, December 15, 2020 4:44:58 PM CET Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 08:30:21AM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > Honestly I don't know how to deal with regular EPEL-8 development after > > this. EPEL is going to add an epel-next which they would ask for additional > > targets in mock for. However that does not fix building against the regular > > EPEL-8 target. I expect it will depend on what programs come up for > > development in the coming year and if the new -devel RHEL UBI images can be > > used for mock. > > Or just the no-cost RHEL developer subscription? It seems like this is a > good use case for that, if it could be made easy enough that it isn't > painful for EPEL packagers. Notable problem if we switched from CentOS to RHEL in Mock configuration is that several build dependencies will be missing. RHEL 8 doesn't e.g. ship e.g. the *-devel packages (this problem, if I understand it correctly, is slowly worked-around by CentOS-only packages). NB there already is such equivalent configuration, 'mock -r rhelepel-8-x86_64'. But RH-subscribed :-) Fedora is needed. Pavel ___ 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: Epel 8 (and 9) build against what?
On Tuesday, December 15, 2020 4:44:58 PM CET Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 08:30:21AM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > Honestly I don't know how to deal with regular EPEL-8 development after > > this. EPEL is going to add an epel-next which they would ask for additional > > targets in mock for. However that does not fix building against the regular > > EPEL-8 target. I expect it will depend on what programs come up for > > development in the coming year and if the new -devel RHEL UBI images can be > > used for mock. > > Or just the no-cost RHEL developer subscription? It seems like this is a > good use case for that, if it could be made easy enough that it isn't > painful for EPEL packagers. That would be sort of good for Copr (we now can not support EPEL s390x for example because there's no CentOS s390x). Could we use the devel subscriptions (on copr builders) for building epel-* targets against RHEL? Or could we get some special subscription for Copr purposes? Yes, so far we (copr) build EPEL against CentOS+EPEL (ditto users locally, with mock-core-configs.rpm). Pavel ___ 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: Epel 8 (and 9) build against what?
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 08:30:21AM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > Honestly I don't know how to deal with regular EPEL-8 development after > this. EPEL is going to add an epel-next which they would ask for additional > targets in mock for. However that does not fix building against the regular > EPEL-8 target. I expect it will depend on what programs come up for > development in the coming year and if the new -devel RHEL UBI images can be > used for mock. Or just the no-cost RHEL developer subscription? It seems like this is a good use case for that, if it could be made easy enough that it isn't painful for EPEL packagers. -- 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: Proposal for RHEL8 missing -devel packages
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 5:06 AM Andrew C Aitchison
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2020, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> > On 12/13/20 7:52 PM, Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >>
> >>> Also, since you might want to bump the release independently in EPEL (e.g.
> >>> if we discover something was wrong in the way we have packaged this), I
> >>> recommend doing:
> >>>
> >>> %global rhelrelease 10
> >>> %global baserelease 1
> >>> Release: %{rhelrelease}.%{baserelease}%{?dist}
> >>> ...
> >>> Requires: qpdf-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{rhelrelease}%{?dist}
> >>>
> >>> (Assuming qpdf has regular %{dist} and not some modularity artificial
> >>> value.)
> >>>
> >>> Note that I've named the EPEL part of the release "baserelease", so
> >>> rpmdev-bumpspec does the right thing.
> >>
> >> If rhelrelease updates to 10.1 which will win ?
> >> ... and if we have already bumped baserelease to 2 ?
> >>
> >> rhelreleasename
> >> baserelease
> >> 102qpdf-devel-10.2.epel.rpm
> >> 10.1qpdf-devel-10.1.rhel.rpm
> >>
> >> Which will win ?
> >
> > Right. Can we use ^ in EL8 to separate the RHEL and EPEL parts?
>
> "^" sorts after digits (at least in ASCII and Basic Latin), so
> can anyone check whether
> qpdf-devel-10^2.epel.rpm
> will trump
> qpdf-devel-100.1.rhel.rpm
> or
> qpdf-devel-10.3.rhel.rpm
> ?
> My recollection is that there have been several different
> implementations of parsers for version-release checks with different
> twisty paths for splitting sub-components.
> My last RedHat based system is SL6 (sorry I moved to Ubuntu to match
> work) so I couldn't do a reliable test myself.
>
Sorry I'm late in replying, but why don't you use
Release: %{rhelrelease}%{?dist}.%{baserelease}
rhelrelease baserelease name
10 2 qpdf-devel-10.el8.2.rpm
10.1 2qpdf-devel-10.1.el8.2.rpm
$ rpmdev-vercmp 10.el8.2 10.1.el8.2
10.el8.2 < 10.1.el8.2
Troy
___
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: Epel 8 (and 9) build against what?
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 at 05:00, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Regarding the recent announcement of CentOS 8 flipping to CentOS Stream - > What will be the configs for building EPEL 8? > I mean mock configs? And I ask as Mock maintainer - because I have no idea. > > Are we going to build EPEL 8 against CentOS stream? What will happen when > CentOS stream flip to RHEL 9 based content > > https://wiki.centos.org/FAQ/CentOSStream#What_happens_when_CentOS_Stream_switches_from_RHEL_8_to_RHEL_9_based_content.3F > ? > > Honestly I don't know how to deal with regular EPEL-8 development after this. EPEL is going to add an epel-next which they would ask for additional targets in mock for. However that does not fix building against the regular EPEL-8 target. I expect it will depend on what programs come up for development in the coming year and if the new -devel RHEL UBI images can be used for mock. -- 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] Re: Local mock builds for EPEL 8 (not Next) after CentOS Linux 8 EOL (also, EPEL 9)
On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 6:15 AM Christopher Engelhard wrote: > > On 09.12.20 11:17, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > However, since CentOS Linux 8 (and 9!) will be no more, do we have some > > ideas how to handle this? Do we require all EPEL contributors to obtain > > the developer RHEL subscription (seems like a huge pain)? Do we switch > > to Oracle Linux (only half joking)? Do we try to fight this decision > > (however I am afraid I've exhausted my fight capacity on different > > decisions)? > > Intuitively, I think that requiring RHEL dev subscriptions would pretty > much kill EPEL packaging on Copr. Unless you specifically want to > create EPEL packages, why would you get and keep a RHEL dev subscription > when you could just not check the EPEL-boxes? > > From a purely technical perspective, i.e. pretending it were CentFork > Community Linux, are there reasons not to use Oracle Linux? Ignoring that Oracle gives me the heebie-jeebies, at this time, the only two reasonable options are: * CloudLinux's Project Lenix: https://blog.cloudlinux.com/announcing-open-sourced-community-driven-rhel-fork-by-cloudlinux * Oracle (Unmentionable) Linux: http://public-yum.oracle.com/index.html Oracle's variant is available now, but... yeah. The CloudLinux offering is supposed to become available in the next month or so. They don't seem to be terrible people and a lot of companies have been using their stuff for a while now, so I'm reasonably confident in their continual existence. If they're true to their word on their free RHEL clone offering, we could probably switch to it as the input for Mock and the Fedora COPR service. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! ___ 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: Proposal for RHEL8 missing -devel packages
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 12/13/20 7:52 PM, Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Also, since you might want to bump the release independently in EPEL (e.g.
if we discover something was wrong in the way we have packaged this), I
recommend doing:
%global rhelrelease 10
%global baserelease 1
Release: %{rhelrelease}.%{baserelease}%{?dist}
...
Requires: qpdf-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{rhelrelease}%{?dist}
(Assuming qpdf has regular %{dist} and not some modularity artificial
value.)
Note that I've named the EPEL part of the release "baserelease", so
rpmdev-bumpspec does the right thing.
If rhelrelease updates to 10.1 which will win ?
... and if we have already bumped baserelease to 2 ?
rhelrelease name
baserelease
10 2 qpdf-devel-10.2.epel.rpm
10.1 qpdf-devel-10.1.rhel.rpm
Which will win ?
Right. Can we use ^ in EL8 to separate the RHEL and EPEL parts?
"^" sorts after digits (at least in ASCII and Basic Latin), so
can anyone check whether
qpdf-devel-10^2.epel.rpm
will trump
qpdf-devel-100.1.rhel.rpm
or
qpdf-devel-10.3.rhel.rpm
?
My recollection is that there have been several different
implementations of parsers for version-release checks with different
twisty paths for splitting sub-components.
My last RedHat based system is SL6 (sorry I moved to Ubuntu to match
work) so I couldn't do a reliable test myself.
--
Andrew C. Aitchison Kendal, UK
and...@aitchison.me.uk___
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: Epel 8 (and 9) build against what?
On 12/15/20 11:00 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote: Regarding the recent announcement of CentOS 8 flipping to CentOS Stream - What will be the configs for building EPEL 8? I mean mock configs? And I ask as Mock maintainer - because I have no idea. Are we going to build EPEL 8 against CentOS stream? What will happen when CentOS stream flip to RHEL 9 based content https://wiki.centos.org/FAQ/CentOSStream#What_happens_when_CentOS_Stream_switches_from_RHEL_8_to_RHEL_9_based_content.3F ? See this thread: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/WCFRJJ3JJFTGD6UMX7WOMCS4F2EVUM5X/ -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ 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: Proposal for RHEL8 missing -devel packages
On 12/13/20 7:52 PM, Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Also, since you might want to bump the release independently in EPEL (e.g. if
we discover something was wrong in the way we have packaged this), I recommend
doing:
%global rhelrelease 10
%global baserelease 1
Release: %{rhelrelease}.%{baserelease}%{?dist}
...
Requires: qpdf-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{rhelrelease}%{?dist}
(Assuming qpdf has regular %{dist} and not some modularity artificial value.)
Note that I've named the EPEL part of the release "baserelease", so
rpmdev-bumpspec does the right thing.
If rhelrelease updates to 10.1 which will win ?
... and if we have already bumped baserelease to 2 ?
rhelrelease name
baserelease
10 2 qpdf-devel-10.2.epel.rpm
10.1 qpdf-devel-10.1.rhel.rpm
Which will win ?
Right. Can we use ^ in EL8 to separate the RHEL and EPEL parts?
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
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: Proposal for RHEL8 missing -devel packages
On 12/13/20 7:21 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Don't forget to move the following metadata to the main package:
Summary: Development files for QPDF library
Requires: qpdf-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Do you mean the main package as qpdf ? We don't control that package.
No. I mean the main qpdf-devel package of the qpdf-devel component.
So when I've said "move" I should have said "copy" instead, sorry.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
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] Epel 8 (and 9) build against what?
Regarding the recent announcement of CentOS 8 flipping to CentOS Stream - What will be the configs for building EPEL 8? I mean mock configs? And I ask as Mock maintainer - because I have no idea. Are we going to build EPEL 8 against CentOS stream? What will happen when CentOS stream flip to RHEL 9 based content https://wiki.centos.org/FAQ/CentOSStream#What_happens_when_CentOS_Stream_switches_from_RHEL_8_to_RHEL_9_based_content.3F ? -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCA Red Hat, Associate Manager ABRT/Copr, #brno, #fedora-buildsys ___ 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
