[EPEL-devel] retired packages in buildroots

2015-05-08 Thread Till Maas
Hi, it was noticed that the EPEL buildroots contained a lot of builds of packages that were retired in EPEL. Some of them are available in RHEL now. This should be adjusted now, but it might cause build errors if current EPEL packages depended on the retired builds and do not work with the RHEL pa

Re: [EPEL-devel] Help understanding failing Koji build

2015-05-08 Thread Taylor Braun-Jones
Moving thread to this list (previously on de...@lists.fedoraproject.org) On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Taylor Braun-Jones wrote: > On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Orion Poplawski > wrote: > >> suitesparse was not properly retired in EPEL. It's being fixed now. >> Should >> be working once th

Re: [EPEL-devel] wine 32

2015-05-08 Thread ToddAndMargo
On 05/08/2015 08:34 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 08.05.2015 um 21:09 schrieb ToddAndMargo: On 05/07/2015 01:02 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 07.05.2015 um 21:58 schrieb ToddAndMargo: Any sign of Red Hat changing their ways? Or are they just sick and tired of 32 bit? i686 is dead - there is n

Re: [EPEL-devel] wine 32

2015-05-08 Thread Reindl Harald
Am 08.05.2015 um 21:09 schrieb ToddAndMargo: On 05/07/2015 01:02 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 07.05.2015 um 21:58 schrieb ToddAndMargo: Any sign of Red Hat changing their ways? Or are they just sick and tired of 32 bit? i686 is dead - there is no RHEL7 for i686 at all the last non x86_64 i

Re: [EPEL-devel] wine 32

2015-05-08 Thread ToddAndMargo
On 05/07/2015 01:02 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 07.05.2015 um 21:58 schrieb ToddAndMargo: Any sign of Red Hat changing their ways? Or are they just sick and tired of 32 bit? i686 is dead - there is no RHEL7 for i686 at all Hi Reindl, https://access.redhat.com/solutions/509373 RHEL

Re: [EPEL-devel] wine 32

2015-05-08 Thread ToddAndMargo
On 05/07/2015 01:02 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 07.05.2015 um 21:58 schrieb ToddAndMargo: Any sign of Red Hat changing their ways? Or are they just sick and tired of 32 bit? i686 is dead - there is no RHEL7 for i686 at all the last non x86_64 i faced was 5 years ago and frankly the whole li

[EPEL-devel] EPEL-meeting 2015-05-08 notes

2015-05-08 Thread Stephen John Smoogen
Meeting ended Fri May 8 17:40:04 2015 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/epel/2015-05-08/epel.2015-05-08-17.03.html Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/epel/2015-05-08/epel.2015-05-08-17.03.log.html === #epel:

Re: [EPEL-devel] [EPEL] #21: EPEL Wrangler Request : Review python27

2015-05-08 Thread EPEL
#21: EPEL Wrangler Request : Review python27 --+ Reporter: smooge | Owner: epel-wranglers Type: defect | Status: closed Priority: major| Milestone: Component: Package request |Ver

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 5 updates-testing report

2015-05-08 Thread updates
The following Fedora EPEL 5 Security updates need testing: Age URL https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2012-5630/bugzilla-3.2.10-5.el5 565 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-11893/libguestfs-1.20.12-1.el5 330 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/upda

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

2015-05-08 Thread updates
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing: Age URL 176 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2014-3989/cross-binutils-2.23.88.0.1-2.el7.1 60 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-1087/dokuwiki-0-0.24.20140929c.el7 60 https://admin.fedora

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 6 updates-testing report

2015-05-08 Thread updates
The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing: Age URL https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2012-5620/bugzilla-3.4.14-2.el6 176 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2014-4008/cross-binutils-2.23.51.0.3-1.el6.1 37 https://admin.fedoraproject

Re: [EPEL-devel] pkgdb to request epel7 branch, or bugzilla SCM request?

2015-05-08 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Fri, 8 May 2015 09:30:12 -0400 Chuck Anderson wrote: > I'm confused about the process for requesting an epel7 branch (or any > branch for that matter). There is a button in pkgdb to do so, but this > documentation still refers to adding an SCM request in bugzilla: > > https://fedoraproject.or

[EPEL-devel] pkgdb to request epel7 branch, or bugzilla SCM request?

2015-05-08 Thread Chuck Anderson
I'm confused about the process for requesting an epel7 branch (or any branch for that matter). There is a button in pkgdb to do so, but this documentation still refers to adding an SCM request in bugzilla: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests Which one is sufficient? How lon