On 24/02/16 23:36, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> And it looks like I missed sending a final response on this. We talked
> about this at the EPEL Steering Committee meeting and approve of this
> plan. Please update to 1.8 (if you haven't already) and follow
> through.
Excellent. Thank you very much
On 02/24/2016 06:35 PM, Mukundan Ragavan wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
All,
I have built Xfce 4.12 packages for EL-7 on COPR. The link for the
repo is
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/nonamedotc/xfce412-epel7/
I would appreciate it if people can install the p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
All,
I have built Xfce 4.12 packages for EL-7 on COPR. The link for the
repo is
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/nonamedotc/xfce412-epel7/
I would appreciate it if people can install the packages and give it a
spin. Please report any issu
> "SJS" == Stephen John Smoogen writes:
SJS> Things done:
epel-rpm-macros-6-4 is pushed to stable. Not sure if it's shown up at
the mirrors yet. It fixes the bad interaction with the SCL macros.
-5 was going to add %autosetup but it seems that the RHEL people are
adding that directly.
No
I got caught up trying to research a problem with NFS and iscsi and
completely missed that I was supposed to run a meeting today.
Thanks to the people who pinged me and my apologies. Since I am now a
month ahead, I would like to get all the issues that we are wanting
done in the next week meeting
On 29 January 2016 at 06:51, Jamie Nguyen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A few days ago, three CVEs for Nginx and were fixed in 1.8.1. Upstream
> only maintain 1.8.x and above, so they didn't release any fixes for
> older versions of Nginx. I was able to backport the relevant commits to
> Nginx 1.6.x on EL7.
>
> "TK" == Toshio Kuratomi writes:
TK> The easiest thing to do if you want a single spec file for EPEL7 and
TK> Fedora is to Requires: python-foo rather than python2-foo.
Except that FPC would like to move away from this. That's the entire
reason I've brought this up. Any implicit dependenc
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> One annoying difference between packaging for Fedora and EPEL7 (and
> probably older) is the fact that Python packages in Fedora are required
> to provide "python2-foo" whereas many EL7 packages don't. This leads to
> ifdefs and unple
On 24/02/16 13:41, Peter wrote:
> Maybe I missed something here.
I just realized I completely missed the point of this, never mind my
post above it's based on a complete mis-understanding.
Peter
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraprojec
> "P" == Peter writes:
P> I would be worried, though, that you'll have packages that were built
P> against python that are now trying to pull in and possibly run on
P> python2 unnecessarily, and possibly detrimentally if Red Hat suddenly
P> decides to push python2 packages out.
I can't imag
The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
248 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-6828
chicken-4.9.0.1-4.el6
231 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7031
python-virtualenv-12.0.7-1.el6
225 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.o
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
352 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-1087
dokuwiki-0-0.24.20140929c.el7
115 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-dac7ed832f
mcollective-2.8.4-1.el7
13 https://bodhi.fedorapr
On 24 Feb 2016 17:12, "Jason L Tibbitts III" wrote:
>
> You took this off-list; was that intentional? Feel free to forward my
> message back to the list if you wish.
>
> > "JH" == James Hogarth writes:
>
> JH> I suppose having the guidelines prefer requires on python-foo rather
> JH> than py
13 matches
Mail list logo
