On Tue, 11 Dec 2018, Dave Love wrote:
> Obviously I can do that and set up a repo for use with mock, but you
> surely don't expect all package maintainers to do that.
when it is testing a Beta in a new Major, I do not feel that
is an unreasonable expectation
There is also a .repo file which
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018, Dave Love wrote:
> Does anyone know what the situation is with -devel packages in RHEL8
> beta? Many seem to be missing, so it's difficult to test EPEL builds
> for 8, and you can't necessarily rebuild ones that are shipped in the
> distribution; an example is openmpi, with
On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, R P Herrold wrote:
> I've poked at getting accurate counts and manifests of unique
> python(2) package SRPMs off my mirror today -- I'll supplement
> this email with the script and links to the mainfests
> tomorrow. A 'sort | uniq' let me down as to getting an
On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> I'm confused here. I doubt very much RHEL is going to drop
> python2 from rhel7. Thus epel7 packages should be able to go
> on as they have...
I've poked at getting accurate counts and manifests of unique
python(2) package SRPMs off my mirror today --
notwithstanding my post on the f-devel ML, ...
Probaby there should some work on communicating the need to
turn down EPEL 6 at 2020 11 30, and with it those python
2 modules by that time
Smooge, if from the logs you can comb mirroring apart from
installlation pulls, having a ranked list of
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> >
> > bug numbers?
>
> Variants on a theme:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426816
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1517925
thank you
-- Russ
___
epel-devel mailing list
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> We have been getting a couple of reports of this, but I have not been
> able to duplicate it on my test systems.
bug numbers?
As I said in my earlier post, there was a new strictness in
the nagios parser, and I needed to tighten things up in
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017, Mátyás Selmeci wrote:
> This highlights a problem I've occasionally had with EPEL, namely that
> packages I depend on occasionally get removed. This especially causes trouble
> when a package gets removed because it's now in RHEL, because it takes a few
> months for CentOS and
On Wed, 3 May 2017, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> > python3-flask:
> >python3-itsdangerous
> >python3-sqlalchemy
>
> again, already in EPEL7
ehh? -- I see no python3-sqlalchemy in EPEL-7
[herrold@centos-7 ~]$ date ; sudo yum -q clean all
Thu May 11 12:19:59 EDT 2017
[herrold@centos-7 ~]$
On Sat, 21 Nov 2015, Germano Massullo wrote:
> Did you try to ask them to include all TeXLive packages that are
> available from upstream? If not, I can try
there are lots of licenses to audit, per sub-package, and
dependency trees of matter limited to non-commercial and so
forth
-- Russ
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015, Germano Massullo wrote:
> You can simply re use the collection of texlive-scheme-full for Fedora
> (non EPEL)
One would assume so, but I found dependencies on non-free bits
in there
-- Russ herrold
___
epel-devel mailing list
11 matches
Mail list logo
