2015-09-24 18:58 GMT+02:00 Stephen John Smoogen :
> On 24 September 2015 at 10:40, Haïkel wrote:
>> Looks like we do have some progress on that topic :)
>>
>> So plan B would be:
>> 1. automate EPEL rebuilds in CBS
>> 2. have CI run automated test
Looks like we do have some progress on that topic :)
So plan B would be:
1. automate EPEL rebuilds in CBS
2. have CI run automated test suite over EPEL rebuilds
Correct me if I'm wrong but we would be ok to enable CentOS folks to
fix EPEL packaging.
It would be easier if we do create an
On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 08:45:32 PM Karsten Wade wrote:
> On 09/22/2015 11:35 AM, Dave Johansen wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Remi Collet
> >
> > wrote:
> >> Le 21/09/2015 16:12, Haïkel a écrit :
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Since the CentOS acquihire,
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 08:45:32PM -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
> AIUI, the concern is that what is labeled/supported by the CentOS
> Project as 'CentOS' needs to go through the CentOS Project QA system.
> We simply cannot blindly accept builds from outside of the CentOS
> builders just on say-so.
On 22 Sep 2015, at 8:35 PM, Dave Johansen wrote:
> +1. I agree that using EPEL rather than trying to replace it is a much better
> solution.
+1 why "fix" something that is not broken
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/23/2015 09:49 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 23 September 2015 at 10:31, Matthew Miller
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 08:45:32PM -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
>>> AIUI, the concern is that what is
On Monday, September 21, 2015 08:58:21 PM Haïkel wrote:
> 2015-09-21 19:46 GMT+02:00 Kevin Fenzi :
> > On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:12:07 +0200
> >
> > Haïkel wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Since the CentOS acquihire, there was a lot of discussion about
> >>
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Remi Collet
wrote:
> Le 21/09/2015 16:12, Haïkel a écrit :
> > Hi,
> >
> > Since the CentOS acquihire, there was a lot of discussion about EPEL's
> future.
> > Since the FOSDEM meetup between Fedora/CentOS folks, there was little
> >
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 20:58:21 +0200
Haïkel wrote:
> 2015-09-21 19:46 GMT+02:00 Kevin Fenzi :
> > Which tickets do you mean here? They are only rebuilding some
> > packages, but not others or?
>
> Any tickets filed against EPEL, for instance, if a bug
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/22/2015 12:18 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> Also, this would probibly be some kind of big deal to some
> people who like that EPEL is built against rhel.
> Personally, I don't think it matters, but it would have to
> be
2015-09-22 21:18 GMT+02:00 Dennis Gilmore :
> On Monday, September 21, 2015 08:58:21 PM Haïkel wrote:
>> 2015-09-21 19:46 GMT+02:00 Kevin Fenzi :
>> > On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:12:07 +0200
>> >
>> > Haïkel wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >>
Le 21/09/2015 16:12, Haïkel a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Since the CentOS acquihire, there was a lot of discussion about EPEL's future.
> Since the FOSDEM meetup between Fedora/CentOS folks, there was little
> progress on that topic
Just enable EPEL in CBS, and that's all.
Remi.
P.S. and explain to
Hi,
Since the CentOS acquihire, there was a lot of discussion about EPEL's future.
Since the FOSDEM meetup between Fedora/CentOS folks, there was little
progress on that topic
After a discussion with a Smooge, I decided to come with a proposal,
knowing that
1. Fedora wants to keep EPEL within it
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:12:07 +0200
Haïkel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Since the CentOS acquihire, there was a lot of discussion about
> EPEL's future. Since the FOSDEM meetup between Fedora/CentOS folks,
> there was little progress on that topic
>
> After a discussion with a
2015-09-21 19:46 GMT+02:00 Kevin Fenzi :
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:12:07 +0200
> Haïkel wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Since the CentOS acquihire, there was a lot of discussion about
>> EPEL's future. Since the FOSDEM meetup between Fedora/CentOS folks,
>> there
15 matches
Mail list logo