On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> It might be this in your spec:
>
> #%global gcc_vr 4.8.2-16.2.el7_0
>
> # is not a comment in a spec file. The %global is still expanded.
> Replace % with # or something to make it not do so.
That was it. Thanks for the assistance!
__
Bug #1203649 was reported against dragonegg, which is tied to the
specific version of gcc it is built against, because it uses the gcc
plugin interface. EL7.1 has a newer gcc, so dragonegg has to be
rebuilt. I did a new build (fedpkg build from epel7 branch), but it
still built against gcc from EL7
On 03/19/2015 05:57 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> At the last meeting I promised we would hold a vote on the Python 3 on the
> mailing lists.
+1
Eric
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mail
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> No they can not. Every package we ship in EPEL must only rely on what is
> shipped in either EPEL or base RHEL (or CentOS as it doesn't have a ton of
> confusing channels).
OK. I suppose I should ask the collections people whether a
Can EPEL7 packages depend on Software Collections packages?
If not, is there any plan to have a separate repository for that?
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
