[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL9 - thoughts and timings
On Thu, 2021-01-28 at 15:15 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 03:05:16PM -0800, Troy Dawson wrote: > > As we are getting closer to the F34 branching, which means we are > > getting closer to CentOS 9 Stream, which will eventually be turned > > into RHEL9 Beta, and then RHEL9 release. Now seems like a good > > time > > to get ideas flowing about EPEL9. > > > > I'm just throwing ideas around. Nothing I'm saying here is even > > close > > to policy or a final plan. If people have other ideas, feel free > > to > > say them. > > > > epel8-next is getting closer and closer to being in place. > > To me it seems logical to create a epel9-next, pointing at the > > CentOS > > 9 Stream (when it comes). It would need the same setting up as > > epel8-next, all the steps would be the same other than the name and > > where it points for it's repo. > > > > We could also setup some type of signup board for if maintainers > > want > > the EPEL Packaging SIG to automatically bring their packages over. > > > > With epel9-next in place, and good set of EPEL9 packages in it, > > users > > would be able to test RHEL9 much better in it's beta phase. > > > > Also, it would take alot of pressure off when we start getting > > regular > > EPEL9 setup. If it takes a month or two, people wouldn't be as > > concerned, because they could always just grab the packages from > > epel9-next. > > I think that could be workable, but I'll toss out another proposal: > > As soon as centos 9 stream exists, we create epel9-playground and > allow > people to branch/add packages to it. Once rhel9 is GA, we setup epel9 > as > usual and epel9-next and point epel9-next to build against stream and > playground to build against rhel9. epel9-playground acting first as a "Rawhide" for c9s pre-RHEL9 GA and then as a playground for RHEL9 could be a bit confusing? > > The advantages of that would be that epel9-playground is more rawhide > like... it would compose every night and there's no bodhi overhead. > Of course to be confusing we could just treat epel9-stream that way > until GA too I suppose. > Right, using epel9-next but with no Bodhi gating until GA seems like a nice idea. To add another variant to this: we can also start enabling Bodhi but with time-to-stable set to 3 days (like Fedora betas) once RHEL 9 is in beta? i.e. "we think c9s should have stabilized enough by now that we can start gating EPEL packages targeting it". Best regards, -- Michel Alexandre Salim profile: https://keyoxide.org/mic...@michel-slm.name signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ 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] Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing report
The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing: Age URL 7 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-83ab5bb91b opensmtpd-6.8.0p2-1.el8 3 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-b68969af8c chromium-88.0.4324.96-1.el8 2 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-403074b7e0 seamonkey-2.53.6-1.el8 1 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-aadbebf090 monitorix-3.13.1-1.el8 The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing koji-1.23.1-1.el8 libabigail-1.8.1-1.el8 lua-readline-2.9-3.el8 Details about builds: koji-1.23.1-1.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f3a1430962) Build system tools Update Information: Update to bugfix release 1.23.1. Fixup compatibility of kojid with koji- hub 1.21 ChangeLog: * Thu Jan 28 2021 Kevin Fenzi - 1.23.1-1 - Update to 1.23.1. Fixes rhbz#1917340 * Sun Jan 17 2021 Igor Raits - 1.23.0-3 - Fixup compatibility of kojid with koji-hub 1.21 * Mon Nov 30 2020 Kevin Fenzi - 1.23.0-2 - Fix 32 bit arm install issue. Fixes bug #1894261 libabigail-1.8.1-1.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2021-50207d9969) Set of ABI analysis tools Update Information: Update to upstream fixes up to libabigail-1.8.1 ChangeLog: * Wed Jan 27 2021 Dodji Seketeli - 1.8.1-1 - Update to upstream fixes up to libabigail-1.8.1 This encompasses this fixes, compared to the last 1.8 release: ir: Add better comments to types_have_similar_structure mainpage: Update web page for 1.8 release Bug 26992 - Try harder to resolve declaration-only classes Bug 27204 - potential loss of some aliased ELF function symbols Ignore duplicated functions and those not associated with ELF symbols Bug 27236 - Pointer comparison wrongly fails because of typedef change Bug 27233 - fedabipkgdiff fails on package gnupg2 from Fedora 33 Bug 27232 - fedabipkgdiff fails on gawk from Fedora 33 dwarf-reader: Support fast DW_FORM_line_strp string comparison gen-changelog.py: Update call to subprocess.Popen & cleanup Bug 27255 - fedabipkgdiff fails on nfs-utils on Fedora 33 abidiff: support --dump-diff-tree with --leaf-changes-only ir: Arrays are indirect types for type structure similarity purposes Add qualifier / typedef / array / pointer test abg-ir: Optimize calls to std::string::find() for a single char. abipkgdiff: Address operator precedence warning lua-readline-2.9-3.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2021-09f86c8ee8) Lua interface to the readline and history libraries Update Information: Upstream reissued 2.8 with fixed version number. Fixed packaging so on Fedora < 33 and RHEL < 9 it correctly requires `lua(abi)` - Update to 2.8 - Fix the reported version, it was not bumped for 2.8 - Use Fedora-specific linker flags (thanks to Robert Scheck ) - Add basic loadability checks (Robert) - Pull in lua-rpm-macros explicitly on EL <= 7 ChangeLog: * Wed Jan 27 2021 Michel Alexandre Salim - 2.9-3 - Fix lua(abi) logic * Wed Jan 27 2021 Michel Alexandre Salim - 2.9-2 - Add Requires on lua(abi) for older releases * Wed Jan 27 2021 Michel Alexandre Salim - 2.9-1 - Update to 2.9 * Tue Jan 26 2021 Michel Alexandre Salim - 2.8-1 - Update to 2.8 - Fix the reported version, it was not bumped for 2.8 - Use Fedora-specific linker flags (thanks to Robert Scheck ) - Add basic loadability checks (Robert) - Pull in lua-rpm-macros explicitly on EL7 References: [ 1 ] Bug #1914667 - Lack of Fedora-specific linker flags https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914667 [ 2 ] Bug #1914686 - lua-readline-2.8 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914686 [ 3 ] Bug #1920958 - lua-readline-2.9 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920958 ___ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org T
[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL9 - thoughts and timings
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 03:05:16PM -0800, Troy Dawson wrote: > As we are getting closer to the F34 branching, which means we are > getting closer to CentOS 9 Stream, which will eventually be turned > into RHEL9 Beta, and then RHEL9 release. Now seems like a good time > to get ideas flowing about EPEL9. > > I'm just throwing ideas around. Nothing I'm saying here is even close > to policy or a final plan. If people have other ideas, feel free to > say them. > > epel8-next is getting closer and closer to being in place. > To me it seems logical to create a epel9-next, pointing at the CentOS > 9 Stream (when it comes). It would need the same setting up as > epel8-next, all the steps would be the same other than the name and > where it points for it's repo. > > We could also setup some type of signup board for if maintainers want > the EPEL Packaging SIG to automatically bring their packages over. > > With epel9-next in place, and good set of EPEL9 packages in it, users > would be able to test RHEL9 much better in it's beta phase. > > Also, it would take alot of pressure off when we start getting regular > EPEL9 setup. If it takes a month or two, people wouldn't be as > concerned, because they could always just grab the packages from > epel9-next. I think that could be workable, but I'll toss out another proposal: As soon as centos 9 stream exists, we create epel9-playground and allow people to branch/add packages to it. Once rhel9 is GA, we setup epel9 as usual and epel9-next and point epel9-next to build against stream and playground to build against rhel9. The advantages of that would be that epel9-playground is more rawhide like... it would compose every night and there's no bodhi overhead. Of course to be confusing we could just treat epel9-stream that way until GA too I suppose. In any case as soon as centos 9 stream is ready, I think it would indeed be a great idea to start allowing epel builds against it one way or another. :) 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: EPEL9 - thoughts and timings
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 03:05:16PM -0800, Troy Dawson wrote: > epel8-next is getting closer and closer to being in place. > To me it seems logical to create a epel9-next, pointing at the CentOS > 9 Stream (when it comes). It would need the same setting up as > epel8-next, all the steps would be the same other than the name and > where it points for it's repo. Makes sense to me! -- 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] EPEL9 - thoughts and timings
As we are getting closer to the F34 branching, which means we are getting closer to CentOS 9 Stream, which will eventually be turned into RHEL9 Beta, and then RHEL9 release. Now seems like a good time to get ideas flowing about EPEL9. I'm just throwing ideas around. Nothing I'm saying here is even close to policy or a final plan. If people have other ideas, feel free to say them. epel8-next is getting closer and closer to being in place. To me it seems logical to create a epel9-next, pointing at the CentOS 9 Stream (when it comes). It would need the same setting up as epel8-next, all the steps would be the same other than the name and where it points for it's repo. We could also setup some type of signup board for if maintainers want the EPEL Packaging SIG to automatically bring their packages over. With epel9-next in place, and good set of EPEL9 packages in it, users would be able to test RHEL9 much better in it's beta phase. Also, it would take alot of pressure off when we start getting regular EPEL9 setup. If it takes a month or two, people wouldn't be as concerned, because they could always just grab the packages from epel9-next. 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] [Fedocal] Reminder meeting : EPEL Steering Committee
Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: EPEL Steering Committee on 2021-01-29 from 17:00:00 to 18:00:00 US/Eastern At fedora-meet...@irc.freenode.net The meeting will be about: This is the weekly EPEL Steering Committee Meeting. A general agenda is the following: #meetingname EPEL #topic Intros #topic Old Business #topic EPEL-7 #topic EPEL-8 #topic Openfloor #endmeeting Source: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/calendar/meeting/9854/ ___ 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
