[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing report
The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing: Age URL 1 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-0bb4947962 zchunk-1.2.2-1.el8 1 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-a55cc9e04f stb-0-0.8.20211022gitaf1a5bc.el8 The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing pcg-cpp-0.98.1-2.20220420git428802d.el8 perl-Math-Int128-0.22-6.el8 stockfish-15-1.el8 uglify-js3-3.15.4-1.el8 Details about builds: pcg-cpp-0.98.1-2.20220420git428802d.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2022-c2ea0782a6) PCG Random Number Generation, C++ Edition Update Information: Fix bug in pcg128_t/engine operator>> ChangeLog: * Wed Apr 20 2022 Benjamin A. Beasley 0.98.1-2 - Fix bug in pcg128_t/engine operator>> perl-Math-Int128-0.22-6.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2022-60e0be55a9) Manipulate 128-bit integers in Perl Update Information: This updated brings a new perl-Math-Int128 package, which provides 128-bit integers to Perl. ChangeLog: * Wed Apr 20 2022 Petr Pisar - 0.22-6 - Package tests * Fri Jan 21 2022 Fedora Release Engineering - 0.22-5 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_36_Mass_Rebuild * Thu Jul 22 2021 Fedora Release Engineering - 0.22-4 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_35_Mass_Rebuild * Fri May 21 2021 Jitka Plesnikova - 0.22-3 - Perl 5.34 rebuild * Wed Jan 27 2021 Fedora Release Engineering - 0.22-2 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_34_Mass_Rebuild * Fri Aug 7 2020 Petr Pisar 0.22-1 - Specfile autogenerated by cpanspec 1.78. References: [ 1 ] Bug #2076907 - Add perl-Math-Int128 to EPEL8 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2076907 stockfish-15-1.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2022-206abf9f88) Powerful open source chess engine Update Information: Update to version 15 https://github.com/official- stockfish/Stockfish/releases/tag/sf_15 ChangeLog: * Tue Apr 19 2022 Ondrej Mosnacek - 15-1 - Bump to version 15 - Resolves: rhbz#2076750 * Sat Jan 22 2022 Fedora Release Engineering - 14.1-2 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_36_Mass_Rebuild uglify-js3-3.15.4-1.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2022-982622e2fe) JavaScript parser, mangler/compressor and beautifier toolkit Update Information: UglifyJS 3.15.4 ChangeLog: * Wed Apr 20 2022 Mattias Ellert - 3.15.4-1 - Update to 3.15.4 References: [ 1 ] Bug #2073706 - uglify-js-3.15.4 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2073706 ___ 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] Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing report
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing: Age URL 1 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-e7404b9cd7 zchunk-1.2.2-1.el7 1 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-1e126c870e stb-0-0.8.20211022gitaf1a5bc.el7 The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing pcg-cpp-0.98.1-4.20220408git428802d.el7 python-cheetah-2.4.4-6.el7 uglify-js-3.15.4-1.el7 Details about builds: pcg-cpp-0.98.1-4.20220408git428802d.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2022-41a21d82c0) PCG Random Number Generation, C++ Edition Update Information: Fix bug in pcg128_t/engine operator>> ChangeLog: * Wed Apr 20 2022 Benjamin A. Beasley 0.98.1-4.20220408git428802d - Fix bug in pcg128_t/engine operator>> python-cheetah-2.4.4-6.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2022-91c9153a67) Template engine and code generator Update Information: Bump release to fix upgrade path from python-cheetah in CentOS 7 Extras ChangeLog: * Thu Apr 21 2022 Carl George - 2.4.4-6 - Bump release to fix upgrade path from python-cheetah in CentOS 7 Extras uglify-js-3.15.4-1.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2022-5314145199) JavaScript parser, mangler/compressor and beautifier toolkit Update Information: UglifyJS 3.15.4 ChangeLog: * Wed Apr 20 2022 Mattias Ellert - 3.15.4-1 - Update to 3.15.4 References: [ 1 ] Bug #2073706 - uglify-js-3.15.4 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2073706 ___ 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: [HEADS UP] ImageMagick side-tag for epel8
Hi Sérgio, We aren't sure if you saw this or not, but you have permission to move ahead with the re-builds. Let us know if you need help with anything. On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 3:06 PM Carl George wrote: > On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 5:17 PM Troy Dawson wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 3:00 PM Sérgio Basto wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 13:08 -0700, Troy Dawson wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 12:46 PM Sérgio Basto wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, 2022-03-31 at 11:54 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: > >> > > This update changes a library soname, which makes it an > >> > > incompatible > >> > > upgrade. It must follow the EPEL incompatible upgrades policy [0]. > >> > > This email can count as step 1 once you reply with the specific > >> > > CVEs > >> > > this will address. Then it must be open for discussion on list for > >> > > one week (step 2) before being added as an agenda item at next > >> > > week's > >> > > EPEL Steering Committee meeting [1] (step 3). > >> > > > >> > > [0] > >> > > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-incompatible-upgrades/ > >> > > [1] https://calendar.fedoraproject.org/epel/#m9854 > >> > > >> > OK , thank you > >> > >> > >> Hi, > >> have we any new ? > >> > >> I'd like move on before rhel 8.6 be available . > >> > >> > >> Thank you > >> > >> > >> Hi Sérgio, > >> Could you list the CVE's that this update addresses. > >> If that list is fairly long, at least the important ones > >> > >> > >> > >> we got 82 reported on bugzilla > >> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&classification=Fedora&component=ImageMagick&list_id=12543908&product=Fedora%20EPEL&query_format=advanced > > > > > > Youch! > > Next time, lead with that. :) > > I joke, but that's really what we were waiting for. > > It's a Friday afternoon, and I'm pretty certain we won't get enough of > the committee reading this to give a full vote until next week. > > But, as for me, I give it a +1. > > 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 > > This was approved [0] in today's EPEL Steering Committee meeting. > Please continue with the process for incompatible upgrades from step 4 > forward [1]. > > [0] > https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/epel/epel.2022-04-13-20.00.html > [1] > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-incompatible-upgrades/#process_for_incompatible_upgrades > > -- > 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 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-ANNOUNCE retirement of ansible-2.9.x
Looks like your orig message didn't get to epel-devel, perhaps you
aren't subscribed?
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 04:03:20PM +0200, Michael Trip wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
>
> What does that mean for the ansible rpm package in general? Do we have
> to remove the ansible RPM from our systems and install ansible through
> pip ? Or will ansible-core also land in EPEL 7? My apologies if i don´t
> understand it correctly.
epel7: ansible-2.9.x rpm in epel will be retired (ie, dropped, removed,
no longer appear in repos).
So, yes, you would need to install from pip or if you are using RHEL you
could I think still install the rpm from the ansible-engine channel.
If using pip, you would need to make sure and specify <3.0 or it will
try and install the current version and fail (because python is too old
to meet requirements).
Also, do note that it will be EOL and getting no updates... not even
security updates. :(
kevin
--
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Michael Trip
>
> On Tue, 2022-04-19 at 13:14 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > Greetings.
> >
> > Just a reminder that ansible-core (The split out ansible 'engine')
> > will
> > be landing in RHEL8.6 (and other el builds thereafter). Also, the
> > ansible 2.9.x ('ansible classic') package is going to going end of
> > life
> > and no longer supported in that same timeframe.
> >
> > So, at that time I will be retiring the ansible 2.9.x package in
> > epel7.
> >
> > In epel8 I will be converting the 'ansible' epel8 package into the
> > upstream ansible-5 meta collections package (which also pulls in
> > ansible-core).
> >
> > epel7 and epel8 ansible users are advised to plan for this
> > retirement/change.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > kevin
> > ___
> > epel-announce mailing list -- epel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to
> > epel-announce-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-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
> > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
>
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 conflicts with Satellite 6 packages
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 6:29 AM Troy Dawson wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 3:49 PM Amos wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 4:57 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> >>> >>> Yeah, I'll echo smooge here. Can you expand on exactly what you are >>> hitting? >>> >>> I can't seem to find the orig thread from 2016 in my mailbox, so I'm >>> really not sure what the issue is here. ;( >>> >>> kevin >>> >>> >> Going back to the original thread: >> >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/772FVSHWG6XLEKDYFRSKKMB4IDNPDPRD/#replies >> >> We don't (at least as far as I'm aware) have any broken systems, but this >> is what can result: >> >> System without EPEL: >> >> qpid-proton-c.x86_640.28.0-3.el8 >> @satellite-tools-6.8-for-rhel-8-x86_64-rpms >> >> System that has EPEL and is registered with our Satellite server: >> >> qpid-proton-c.x86_640.37.0-1.el8 @epel >> >> >> Right now this system with EPEL hasn't encountered issues, but every time >> we have experienced this in the past, the system becomes unpatchable. >> Since the original post is from 2016, I was just wondering if this issue >> had evolved at all. >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Amos >> > > I think this is a good question to bring to the people who maintain the > Satellite repo. > The vast majority of the EPEL community have no access to the Satellite > repo and do not even know what packages are in it. > It looks like it's been six years, and they (The Satellite repo > maintainers) haven't reached out to work with us, as far as I know. > If this is a problem, please reach out to them and let them know. > > Troy > I talked with the Satellite people. It seems nobody has brought this up to them for many years. So we had a look. The first thing they stressed was that if you are running the Satellite Server, that you make it like an appliance. Give it its own hardware / virtual-machine so that it is the only thing running on it. And if that is the case, you shouldn't have/need EPEL installed on that Satellite Server appliance. But what about the Satellite Client and Satellite Tools. We had a look. RHEL 7 There are still many conflicts between the satellite tools repo and epel7. These packages are needed because this needs to run on a machine that doesn't have epel, and those packages are missing in RHEL7. This isn't going to change. At this point, if users are using Satellite on RHEL7 or equivalent, they already have something setup and working. Changing things now would do more harm than good. RHEL 8 and 9 For both Satellite Client and Satellite Tools on both RHEL 8 and 9 there is only one conflict - qpid-proton as was said earlier. Also, as was said earlier, the newer version that is currently in epel is safe to run. As long as the EPEL maintainer doesn't change the ABI, things are good. So, in summary. Yes, things are in better shape for Satellite and EPEL. At least for RHEL 8 and 9. 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: EPEL7 packages still in epel-testing
On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 14:48:47 -0700 Troy Dawson wrote: > gnucash-2.6.21-1.el72018-04-15 (1466) Should be safe to unpush this one because gnucash-2.6.21-4.el7 should be in epel7 stable for 2 years: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-aa8e8965dc Paul. ___ 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: EPEL7 packages still in epel-testing
That shows how much I've read the policies in detail. That got transferred over to the regular (non-wiki) docs https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy/#a_yet_again_little_bit_bigger_minor_version_updates That policy in particular is for updates that do not have ABI changes, but config changes that will require manual changes. So, you are correct. I think we're going to have to go with plan C and treat each long term update as a unique item. I'm going to start with a ping on each of the updates to remind the maintainers that the packages are in there. I think we also need to re-visit the detailed policy. At the very least change all the two weeks to one week to fit the new wait time. And several of those points in the policy are stated in different places in the docs. On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 6:56 PM Benjamin Beasley wrote: > For context, until very recently, the EPEL guidelines explicitly asked > packagers to disable time-based push on fully-compatible “minor release” > type updates and let them sit indefinitely in testing until/unless they > accrued +3 karma. The historical guidelines are mostly preserved on the > wiki[1]. > > I’m not sure what that means in terms of how to handle these cases, but it > does suggest that many of these lingering updates may reflect conscientious > application of the guidelines at the time rather than maintainers simply > losing track of updates. > > [1] > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#A_little_bit_bigger_minor_version_updates > ___ > 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 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
