On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 7:22 PM Troy Dawson wrote:
> I see your point. It sometimes also happens when the EPEL package is a
> dependency of the important package, the customers aren't actually asking for
> the EPEL package.
While I am sure that occasionally RH chooses to add
a package to
On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 9:33 AM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> It would be really nice if the wording of the bug could contain some
> kind of a "thank you" note to the EPEL maintainers of the package in
> question. Not everyone will understand this process as "great, I don't
> have to
On Sat, Jun 4, 2022 at 8:52 PM Troy Dawson wrote:
> What do others think?
Almost everything *I* care to do with el eventually
needs epel and/or CRB/Powertools.
I also do not think CRB/Powertools should be
auto-enabled by epel (epel does not own them,
and should not touch them).
And, yes, a
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 12:47 AM Maxwell G wrote:
> I don't follow. What "rpm spec file support" are you referring to?
I interpreted the proposal as adding a
new stanza SPDX: in addition to License:
which requires changing the definition.
The follow up suggested that the license
field be
On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 11:29 PM Chris Adams wrote:
> Would it make sense to make ALL the new tags be SPDX:, at least for
> an interim period (of years most likely) where both old and new tags are
> allowed?
I don't think that is going to work unless the rpm spec
file support would be
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 1:37 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Can you please tell me what is good default for you:
>
> Centos Stream 9:
> 1) epel-9-$arch
> 2) centos-stream-9-$arch
> 3) centos-stream+epel-next-9-$arch
> 4) no default, print error and let user explicitly declare the chroot
As someone
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 5:03 AM Carl George wrote:
>
> However, despite the good intentions, I've observed some frustrations
> among Fedora packagers when collaborators are added via this process.
> We do not want maintainers to feel rushed or circumvented. That said,
> I am firmly of the
On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 8:21 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Once I remove the Obsoletes line from Fedora, should I worry about merging
> that
> commit to the epel9 branch or not? Logic dictates that the Obsolete should
> remain in EPEL 9 forever, but I wonder if there is a policy/rule of thumb.
>
On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 2:05 PM Richard Shaw wrote:
> So most of them work, but not EPEL.
That specific example is being tracked in RHBZ #2049024
The discussion started back in November 2021
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 4:55 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> The limited arch policy we had for epel7 had a number of problems.
> At first we just said 'rebuild the exact rhel version' and then we
> switched to 'add a 0 to release so the rhel package always gets
> installed in favor of it'.
It
On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 6:29 PM Orion Poplawski wrote:
> I don't buy any of these arguments, and it doesn't really address the
> situation of "missing -devel" packages.
The missing devel packages for shipped libraries
are a clear pain point for those that just want build
something for their EL
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 6:39 PM Andrew Bauer
wrote:
> I’ve read the EPEL documentation regarding incompatible upgrades, and I am
> not entirely sure this falls under that category. Yes, it is a major version
> upgrade, but it is unclear to me if that makes it “incompatible”.
As I recall, v3
On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 4:09 AM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> yes, yesterday.
>
> See the announcement:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/5UJSW3FBGQMLXWWV7BGHWZTOFLH4NH3G/
*sigh*. Sorry, I missed it (I think I need to
add yet another mail list
13 matches
Mail list logo
