On Sat, 3 Jun 2023, Brad Bell wrote:
I am getting the error message below in response to a `fedpkg mockbuild`
command. What am I doing wrong ?
fedpkg mockbuild
... snip ...
ERROR: Mock config 'epel-9-x86_64' not found, see errors above.
Here is my system information:
git branch
* epel9
On Fri, 26 May 2023, Brad Bell wrote:
uname -a
Linux fedora 6.2.15-200.fc37.x86_64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Thu May 11
15:56:33 UTC 2023 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
mock --version
3.5
git branch
* epel9
f37
f38
rawhide
dnf info fedpkg
... snip ...
Name : fedpkg
Version
On Mon, 14 Mar 2022, Felix Schwarz wrote:
Hi,
I have submitted a review request [1] which passed ("fedora-review +") but
somehow the package git repo was not created. For Fedora packages this
happens pretty quickly after approval.
Any idea who I should ping about this?
Felix
[1] https:/
On Thu, 3 Mar 2022, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 11:07, Scott Talbert wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2022, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> OK with some help from Miro on the python team, I was able to
use the
> scripts they use regularly to lis
On Thu, 3 Mar 2022, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
OK with some help from Miro on the python team, I was able to use the
scripts they use regularly to list what dependency problems they have with
soon to be orphaned packages. I have included the entire report as an
attachment as its big, but the fo
On Fri, 8 Jan 2021, Nick Howitt wrote:
On 08/01/2021 14:22, Scott Talbert wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2021, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 4:27 AM Nick Howitt wrote:
Thanks. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914192.
Nick
Hopefully that works for you but my
On Fri, 8 Jan 2021, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 4:27 AM Nick Howitt wrote:
Thanks. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914192.
Nick
Hopefully that works for you but my experience is things change very slowly
for EL, specifically EL 7 and I wouldn't expect a
On Thu, 25 Jun 2020, Nicolas Kovacs wrote:
Hi,
I've been using the nifty apt-cacher-ng package cache successfully on Debian.
Now I'd like to run it on our local server running CentOS 7. I installed the
package from EPEL, but the service fails to start.
On Debian, running apt-cacher-ng is a ma
I realize this is somewhat off-topic, but it is also somewhat related to
EPEL, and I don't know where else to ask as I'm not a RHEL customer, but
merely an EPEL packager.
I have an open bug against a package that's in RHEL8. The bug is in ON_QA
state. It is not a security bug. Does this mea
I see:
https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/7/x86_64/Packages/s/sourcextractor++-0.10-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
On Fri, 10 Apr 2020, Tony Schreiner wrote:
This announcement is 11 days ago now, but I still don't see the package with
yum, nor on https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/7/x86_64/Packages/
On Tue, 20 Aug 2019, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
I've noticed that (mostly Smooge) has been using the minor release bump
(e.g., the .1 after the ?dist)
[.][.]%{?dist}[.]
in initial EPEL8 package versions that have been branched from Fedora. I
just want to understand the reasoning behind this.
Hi,
I've noticed that (mostly Smooge) has been using the minor release bump
(e.g., the .1 after the ?dist)
[.][.]%{?dist}[.]
in initial EPEL8 package versions that have been branched from Fedora. I
just want to understand the reasoning behind this. I would think the main
motivation would
> On 8/16/19 7:45 PM, Scott Talbert wrote:
>
> It seems to be working for me - not sure what the "official" stance is.
Strange, it didn't seem to work here, for example:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1323057
__
Is automatic python dependency generation supposed to work on EPEL 8?
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedorapr
14 matches
Mail list logo
