[EPEL-devel] Recent epel 8 branchs - no tag of package in epel
Hi, Last couple of days the epel8 branch requests have been processed okay. Thanks However when you then try and build something it results in BuildError: package X not in list for tag epel8-playground-pending Example: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/19622 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/19623 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=38994106 has occurred for multiple recently branched packages. I think earlier in the week all was good. Steve. ___ 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
Re: [EPEL-devel] Question about EPEL 7 python-ipython*
On 02/27/2015 05:32 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Hi On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Nordgren, Bryce L -FS wrote: I notice that ipython has not been released in epel7, but has a release version for epel6 and Fedora 20-22. Was there a decision to exclude it from epel, or is this due to lack of resources/interest? __ __ https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/python-ipython-notebook It is purely because noone has stepped up to do the maintenance. It is not explicitly excluded. That would only really happen if RHEL itself ships the package or if there are licensing problems See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1136051 which has had some progress recently. Rahul ___ epel-devel mailing list epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel ___ epel-devel mailing list epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
Re: EPEL [Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux] #4: Decide on criteria to unretire packages.
Excerpts from Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux's message of 2014-10-01 07:45:38 +0200: > #4: Decide on criteria to unretire packages. > + > Reporter: till| Owner: epel-wranglers > Type: defect | Status: new > Priority: major | Milestone: > Component: Policy problem |Version: > Keywords: | > + > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Orphaned_package_that_need_new_maintainers#Claiming_Ownership_of_a_Retired_Package > defines the criteria to unretire packages in Fedora and in EPEL if the > package is still active in Fedora. However there is now a request to > unretire a package that is also retired in all branches for more than two > weeks (at least in pkgdb): > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/epel- > devel/2014-September/010212.html > > Therefore the question is, whether a re-review is required. IMHO it does > not make much sense for EPEL, since there should be no guideline changes > that require adjusting the EPEL SPEC files. Nevertheless, I would like to > get a consensus on this. It's definitely needed I would say for this particular case. I think the EPEL maintainers had no idea the pkg orphaning in fedora was going to lead the a complete retirement in all branches. I'm kind of amazed this has never (obviously) happened before. (I'm interested in classadds.) > -- -- Steve Traylen, CERN IT. ___ epel-devel mailing list epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
