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

[updates]

The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
 Age  URL
  63  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f005e1b879   
debmirror-2.35-1.el7
   2  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-70fe95babd   
openssl11-1.1.1k-2.el7


The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing

python-resultsdb_api-2.1.5-3.el7

Details about builds:



 python-resultsdb_api-2.1.5-3.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f08778a753)
 Interface api to ResultsDB

Update Information:

This update backports [a fix](https://pagure.io/taskotron/resultsdb_api/pull-
request/14) for a problem which caused version 2.1.5 not to work on urllib3
versions earlier than 1.26.0. This didn't affect Fedora 35, but we are updating
the package there just to keep the versions in order.    - Drop use of
deprecated Retry parameter - Drop unnecessary `_KEEP` and just `None` instead -
Make tox work (just runs pytest for now) - Port tests to unittest.mock and
ResultsDB API v2 (#1) - Simplify update_testcase - update_testcase: fix variable
name - ResultsDBAuth: it's `@staticmethod`, not `@static_method` - Drop Python 2
string type blob - Enable tests during the rpm build

ChangeLog:

* Fri Nov 19 2021 Adam Williamson  - 2.1.5-3
- Update the patch from -2 to *really* fix the problem
* Fri Nov 19 2021 Adam Williamson  - 2.1.5-2
- Fix Retry allowed methods for urllib 1.25 (F34 and earlier)
* Sun Nov 14 2021 Frantisek Zatloukal  - 2.1.5-1
- Drop use of deprecated Retry parameter
- Drop unnecessary `_KEEP` and just `None` instead
- Make tox work (just runs pytest for now)
- Port tests to unittest.mock and ResultsDB API v2 (#1)
- Simplify update_testcase
- update_testcase: fix variable name
- ResultsDBAuth: it's `@staticmethod`, not `@static_method`
- Drop Python 2 string type blob
- Enable tests during the rpm build
* Mon Nov  8 2021 Frantisek Zatloukal  - 2.1.4-1
- add auth class with basic http auth support


___
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL9 Rollout Proposals

[Carl George]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 5:26 PM Miroslav Suchý  wrote:
>
> Dne 20. 11. 21 v 0:04 Troy Dawson napsal(a):
> > Do we keep everything in epel9-next until RHEL9 GA and then do a mass 
> > branch over and mass rebuild? (Plan A)
>
> And again with 9.1 GA? And again with 9.2 GA? // I do not expect answer, just 
> pointing that minor releases should be
> part of the solution.
>
> Miroslav
> ___
> 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
> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Historically most EPEL packages don't need to be rebuilt with every
minor release, as RHEL libraries don't change often.  When they do
need to be rebuilt, it's been left up to the individual maintainers to
take care of as their time allows.  This has mostly worked OK for us.

Plan A would be a departure from the norm, where we do a mass rebuild
at 9.0 for a "bootstrap" of epel9 content from epel9-next.  At the
last EPEL Steering Committee meeting we talked about doing mass
rebuilds at every future minor release, but more or less agreed that
this would be overkill and would result in a drastic increase in disk
usage in the infrastructure.  Additionally our existing mass rebuild
tooling doesn't account for changes that exist in the epel9-next
branches that need to be merged to the epel9 branches before building.

Plans B and C are more like the status quo, where packagers target
epel9, and do individual package rebuilds as needed after a RHEL minor
release.

-- 
Carl George
___
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL9 Rollout Proposals

[Miroslav Suchý]

Dne 20. 11. 21 v 0:04 Troy Dawson napsal(a):

Do we keep everything in epel9-next until RHEL9 GA and then do a mass branch 
over and mass rebuild? (Plan A)


And again with 9.1 GA? And again with 9.2 GA? // I do not expect answer, just pointing that minor releases should be 
part of the solution.


Miroslav
___
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL9 Rollout Proposals

[Troy Dawson]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 2:16 PM Miroslav Suchý  wrote:

> Dne 18. 11. 21 v 20:31 Troy Dawson napsal(a):
> > - epel9-next stays the way it is currently setup.
>
> Ehm, what is the current setup?
>
>
Sorry about that.  You are correct.  I didn't say how epel9-next is
currently setup.
It is currently setup similar to epel8-next, except for a few key
differences.

1 - epel8-next is built off the CentOS Stream 8 AppStream, BaseOS, and CRB
repos.
epel9-next is currently being built off the CentOS Stream 9 buildroot

2 - epel8-next repo is supposed to be layered on top of epel8, and only
have those packages that would install on CentOS Stream 8, but not on
RHEL8.  This is normally very few packages.
-- Since there is no epel9 at this time, all packages have to be in
epel9-next


>
> And mainly, when I build something in EPEL next, something not compatible
> with EPEL. How it gets to EPEL when next RHEL
> 9.x gets released? I see nothing relevant at
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-updates/
>
> The
>
>https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-about-next/
>
> state that maintainer should do rebuild manually after the release of
> RHEL. That sound error-prone and leaves wide time
> gap when there may be broken deps.
>

That is what this rollout proposal is about, figuring out the best way to
do this rollout.

Do we keep everything in epel9-next until RHEL9 GA and then do a mass
branch over and mass rebuild? (Plan A)
As you said, this can be error prone and could leave a wide time gap.

Do we start epel9 now, and have it be like epel8 and epel8-next right now?
(Plan B and C)
If so, where do we get the RHEL9 packages?
>From RHEL 9 Beta ? (Plan B)
>From CentOS Stream 9 ? (Plan C)

Is there a Plan D that hasn't been brought up yet?

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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL9 Rollout Proposals

[Miroslav Suchý]

Dne 18. 11. 21 v 20:31 Troy Dawson napsal(a):

- epel9-next stays the way it is currently setup.


Ehm, what is the current setup?


And mainly, when I build something in EPEL next, something not compatible with EPEL. How it gets to EPEL when next RHEL 
9.x gets released? I see nothing relevant at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-updates/


The

  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-about-next/

state that maintainer should do rebuild manually after the release of RHEL. That sound error-prone and leaves wide time 
gap when there may be broken deps.


Miroslav
___
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL 9 Next Bodhi updates: Set lower days to stable limit?

[Carl George]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 12:33 PM Kevin Fenzi  wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 01:22:32PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 1:15 PM Miro Hrončok  wrote:
> > >
> > > On 19. 11. 21 17:54, Troy Dawson wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 8:46 AM Stephen John Smoogen  > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 11:42, Miro Hrončok  > > > > wrote:
> > > >  >
> > > >  > Hello EPEL people,
> > > >  >
> > > >  > what do you think about setting the Bodhi days to stable limit 
> > > > to 3 days for
> > > >  > EPEL 9 Next (at least until RHEL 9 GA)?
> > > >  >
> > > >
> > > > I think EPEL-9 Next being based off of Stream with its major changes
> > > > should have a small stable limit. 3 days sounds about right.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > +1
> > >
> > > There seem to be a consensus, do I file a ticket at infra, or does the 
> > > EPSCo
> > > need to approve it a meeting?
> > >
> >
> > Please file a ticket with infra about it.
>
> wow... consensus in 1.5 hours. :)
>
> Perhaps this should be discussed at the next meeting? To allow
> interested parties to actually see it and comment?

+1 to putting this on the agenda for next week's meeting.

>
> Anyhow, I'm personally fine with it, but note that 3 days leaves very
> little time for testing. One of those days is likely mirror sync/getting
> the update, so interested testers would need to update at least every
> day to make sure and not miss out.
>
> kevin
> ___
> 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
> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure



-- 
Carl George
___
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL 9 Next Bodhi updates: Set lower days to stable limit?

[Neal Gompa]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 1:32 PM Kevin Fenzi  wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 01:22:32PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 1:15 PM Miro Hrončok  wrote:
> > >
> > > On 19. 11. 21 17:54, Troy Dawson wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 8:46 AM Stephen John Smoogen  > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 11:42, Miro Hrončok  > > > > wrote:
> > > >  >
> > > >  > Hello EPEL people,
> > > >  >
> > > >  > what do you think about setting the Bodhi days to stable limit 
> > > > to 3 days for
> > > >  > EPEL 9 Next (at least until RHEL 9 GA)?
> > > >  >
> > > >
> > > > I think EPEL-9 Next being based off of Stream with its major changes
> > > > should have a small stable limit. 3 days sounds about right.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > +1
> > >
> > > There seem to be a consensus, do I file a ticket at infra, or does the 
> > > EPSCo
> > > need to approve it a meeting?
> > >
> >
> > Please file a ticket with infra about it.
>
> wow... consensus in 1.5 hours. :)
>
> Perhaps this should be discussed at the next meeting? To allow
> interested parties to actually see it and comment?
>
> Anyhow, I'm personally fine with it, but note that 3 days leaves very
> little time for testing. One of those days is likely mirror sync/getting
> the update, so interested testers would need to update at least every
> day to make sure and not miss out.
>

Considering the state of CentOS Stream 9 and RHEL 9 right now, I'm
inclined to consider it at the same stage as branched Fedora. We can
always raise it later if we want.




--
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL 9 Next Bodhi updates: Set lower days to stable limit?

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 01:22:32PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 1:15 PM Miro Hrončok  wrote:
> >
> > On 19. 11. 21 17:54, Troy Dawson wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 8:46 AM Stephen John Smoogen  > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 11:42, Miro Hrončok  > > > wrote:
> > >  >
> > >  > Hello EPEL people,
> > >  >
> > >  > what do you think about setting the Bodhi days to stable limit to 
> > > 3 days for
> > >  > EPEL 9 Next (at least until RHEL 9 GA)?
> > >  >
> > >
> > > I think EPEL-9 Next being based off of Stream with its major changes
> > > should have a small stable limit. 3 days sounds about right.
> > >
> > >
> > > +1
> >
> > There seem to be a consensus, do I file a ticket at infra, or does the EPSCo
> > need to approve it a meeting?
> >
> 
> Please file a ticket with infra about it.

wow... consensus in 1.5 hours. :) 

Perhaps this should be discussed at the next meeting? To allow
interested parties to actually see it and comment?

Anyhow, I'm personally fine with it, but note that 3 days leaves very
little time for testing. One of those days is likely mirror sync/getting
the update, so interested testers would need to update at least every
day to make sure and not miss out. 

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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL 9 Next Bodhi updates: Set lower days to stable limit?

[Neal Gompa]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 1:15 PM Miro Hrončok  wrote:
>
> On 19. 11. 21 17:54, Troy Dawson wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 8:46 AM Stephen John Smoogen  > > wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 11:42, Miro Hrončok  > > wrote:
> >  >
> >  > Hello EPEL people,
> >  >
> >  > what do you think about setting the Bodhi days to stable limit to 3 
> > days for
> >  > EPEL 9 Next (at least until RHEL 9 GA)?
> >  >
> >
> > I think EPEL-9 Next being based off of Stream with its major changes
> > should have a small stable limit. 3 days sounds about right.
> >
> >
> > +1
>
> There seem to be a consensus, do I file a ticket at infra, or does the EPSCo
> need to approve it a meeting?
>

Please file a ticket with infra about it.



-- 
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL 9 Next Bodhi updates: Set lower days to stable limit?

[Miro Hrončok]

On 19. 11. 21 17:54, Troy Dawson wrote:



On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 8:46 AM Stephen John Smoogen > wrote:


On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 11:42, Miro Hrončok mailto:mhron...@redhat.com>> wrote:
 >
 > Hello EPEL people,
 >
 > what do you think about setting the Bodhi days to stable limit to 3 days 
for
 > EPEL 9 Next (at least until RHEL 9 GA)?
 >

I think EPEL-9 Next being based off of Stream with its major changes
should have a small stable limit. 3 days sounds about right.


+1


There seem to be a consensus, do I file a ticket at infra, or does the EPSCo 
need to approve it a meeting?


--
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL 9 Next Bodhi updates: Set lower days to stable limit?

[Troy Dawson]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 8:46 AM Stephen John Smoogen 
wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 11:42, Miro Hrončok  wrote:
> >
> > Hello EPEL people,
> >
> > what do you think about setting the Bodhi days to stable limit to 3 days
> for
> > EPEL 9 Next (at least until RHEL 9 GA)?
> >
>
> I think EPEL-9 Next being based off of Stream with its major changes
> should have a small stable limit. 3 days sounds about right.
>

+1
___
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL 9 Next Bodhi updates: Set lower days to stable limit?

[Neal Gompa]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 11:45 AM Stephen John Smoogen  wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 11:42, Miro Hrončok  wrote:
> >
> > Hello EPEL people,
> >
> > what do you think about setting the Bodhi days to stable limit to 3 days for
> > EPEL 9 Next (at least until RHEL 9 GA)?
> >
>
> I think EPEL-9 Next being based off of Stream with its major changes
> should have a small stable limit. 3 days sounds about right.
>

Yes, please!



-- 
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL 9 Next Bodhi updates: Set lower days to stable limit?

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 11:42, Miro Hrončok  wrote:
>
> Hello EPEL people,
>
> what do you think about setting the Bodhi days to stable limit to 3 days for
> EPEL 9 Next (at least until RHEL 9 GA)?
>

I think EPEL-9 Next being based off of Stream with its major changes
should have a small stable limit. 3 days sounds about right.



-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard
battle. -- Ian MacClaren
___
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[EPEL-devel] EPEL 9 Next Bodhi updates: Set lower days to stable limit?

[Miro Hrončok]

Hello EPEL people,

what do you think about setting the Bodhi days to stable limit to 3 days for 
EPEL 9 Next (at least until RHEL 9 GA)?


--
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure