>
> Unfortunately my RHEL subscription just expired so I can't check that.
It's a mash issue. The epel mash setup does multilib, but RHEL doesn't
ship some 32bit things on x86_64.
So, there's no 32bit python in rhel6 x86_64, but EPEL mash assumes
there will be one.
Th
of the SIG's
> might end up needing to carry the epel configs, not just the -release
> rpm, but the yum config, enabled already, in their own release files
> to satisfy deps.
So, we can get the maintainers of the epel package out of pkgdb. Is
there a way to get a list of the Ce
am not seeing it in any of the normal channels...
at least not by that name.
Anyhow, How about we try and get the same pool of people maintaining
both the EPEL one and the CentOS one? Then they might be more easily be
able to keep them in sync. Perhaps we can start an email dialog on
that
s go into that tree
> until EPEL ends building for it.
>
> Note only one tree is being built against. If someone wants to 'keep'
> EPEL-6.5 running, they can grab the src.rpms from archives and do it
> themselves on their own hardware.. EPEL only deals with RHEL current.
>
> Have I made this clearer or muddier?
Some clearer. :)
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
tion to EPEL.
> - Can this be changed to 1 week?
I guess I'd be ok moving it to a week.
> - What Constant Integration would be needed to give auto-karma?
>
>
>- How to integrate packages shepherded by CentOS (or other SIGS)
> which may conflict wit
ay around?
When epic-7.1 was created, would it start as a empty repo and require
builds to populate it? or would it somehow copy from 7.0 ?
When epic-7.1 is created, what packages would have branches in it? How
would we add new ones?
Would each of these minor b
more information on the EPEL project.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-announce mailing list
epel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-announce__
Here's a list of the packages we untagged while moving out of beta.
Please make sure the deps are all satisfied on these before pushing
them into epel7.
Thanks,
kevin
--
php-phpseclib-net-sftp-0.3.5-2.el7.src.rpm
caja-extensions-1.8.0-1.el7.src.rpm
nodejs-express-3.5.2-1.el7.src.rpm
n
s:
> >
> > Suggested topics:
>
> I have an additional topic: Establish and document a decision making
> process. As far as I know, decisions are currently typically done by
> Kevin and Dennis agreeing on something, but I believe this is not
> properly documented or well kno
s this
> documented.
The mongodb thing turns out to have just been a mistake. ;)
But yeah, documenting more process would be good.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
yes. get it working on
> whatever subset you can and we'll go on from there.
Yeah, I would love some automated testing.
> * Move to CentOS as build system? Gives us additional arches.
Yeah, if they do a 32bit x86 and 32bit arm, that would give us more
arches.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
ttps://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/epel-devel/2014-July/009759.html
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/epel-devel/2014-July/009829.html
is a bit newer.
I think "soon" is the best we can do. I will try and work on things we
need to do next week...
kevin
On Thu, 07 Aug 2014 15:39:04 +0200
Andreatta Sébastien wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could you please tell us when the testing-epel7 will be available ?
EPEL7 has been available in 'beta' mode since RHEL7 beta came out.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/epel7beta-faq
kevin
signat
he epel version of the package and ask if the
maintainer would be willing to maintain it for epel7 as well.
If there's no answer in 1 week, another maintainer could step in, at
that point you could ask the list if anyone would be willing to step in
and maintain it.
We need t
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:51:04 +0800
Christopher Meng wrote:
> yumex has wrong dep python-pexpect, it's pexpect in RHEL for a long
> time, although this package in RHEL7 has the same version of the one
> in RHEL6.
Yeah, also mentioned in:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 07:57:47 +1000
Dan Callaghan wrote:
> Excerpts from Kevin Fenzi's message of 2014-07-20 03:08:03 +1000:
> > TurboGears-1.1.3-8.el7.src.rpm
>
> I have an open ticket to unblock the missing deps for this...
> hopefully rel-eng will have a chance to tak
e in epel7 right now with
broken deps. I've included a list of those packages here and a
repoclosure output. If you own one of these packages, please fix them.
They may be moved over to epel7-updates-candidate before we leave beta
(requiring you to push them as an update later).
kevin
--
special?
I've seen this a few times, but I'm at a loss to see why it would
happen. ;(
Does it persist for you everytime with wine?
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproje
cussion on that - but I guess here we go.
>
> There are two *backgrounds packages in EPEL/EL stream as far as I can
> tell.
>
> * gnome-backgrounds
> * mate-backgrounds
>
> I suppose we could use gnome-backgrounds ... Kevin?
Using gnome-backgrounds seems fine to me.
kevin
The set of Xfce packages is Not yet finished for epel7.
It's a work in progress.
nonamed...@fedoraproject.org is heading up the effort.
So, yes, it's expected that things are not fully working yet, it's
still being worked on.
kevin
signature.asc
Description
s have been processed, I
> can't see EPEL7 branch in libgeotiff. Am I missing something in the
> process?
yeah, I don't see it either.
Did you request via the wiki page? or scm request in a bug?
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
.
Anyone have anything else for the list?
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
6.src.rpm
perl-XML-Writer-0.606-6.el6.src.rpm
I think these might need blocking.
Of the other 51, I guess we need to figure out which are deliberate
for limited arch support and which are accidental.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 09:41:32 -0600
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 25 June 2014 09:28, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 08:23:24 -0700
> > Jeff Sheltren wrote:
> >
> > > Awesome, thanks!
> > >
> > > Is there a plan/schedule for g
normal epel7.
Press release, announcement, etc.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
rhel7-server
rhel7-rhel-extras
rhel7-server-ha
rhel7-server-optional
Hopefully we can get the wiki page with package contents updated soon.
Thanks,
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-
ok, not much discussion here, but it seems like everyone is ok with
just saying rhel-extras is something we don't conflict with.
Thanks,
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraprojec
remote repos so the packages are only usable
for it's builds, not downloadable by others.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
7;s a bug/issue there, but not the one you are thinking...
I was hoping to have the final trees setup before trying to debug this.
> As far as I know in CentOS all packages and subpackages are part of
> the distribution, so this could be another reason to wait for the
> CentOS release
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 21:03:57 +0200
Simone Caronni wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 16 June 2014 20:15, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> > * When do we want to look at leaving beta status for epel7?
> > I'd suggest we should definitely give CentOS time to release, but
> &g
should we retire the epel7 wiki page for requests? I think
personally, I would be ok dropping that now.
Any other thoughts around epel7?
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fed
ese packages as part of
it's base collection I think.
If packages in that repo prove too fast or too slow moving, we can look
at adding parallel installable versions of packages in there in EPEL.
Thoughts?
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
iki/EPEL:Packaging#Limited_Arch_Packages
>
> Are there any objections/other comments?
We might want to hold off on limited arch packages until rhel7 is
actually released... since we don't really know whats in the final set
until it's there.
Otherwise I think it should work fine.
kevin
signat
ct.org//work/tasks/3011/6923011/root.log
This happens when rhel updates and the buildsys hasn't been able to get
a new repo regen task in yet.
I have forced one:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6924129
once thats done things should be back to normal.
scripts are needing to be ported to the new
> API. This is taking some time but once it is done then the packages
> will flow again.
We have processed the backlog. Please let us know if there's any issues
with the just processed packages.
Thanks for your patience.
kevin
signatu
om
trying to keep matching rhel exactly.
However, I don't know how hard this will be to actually do in practice.
It might end up being way too much effort. ;(
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
x27;m happy to help co-maintain/package monkey versions.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 13:34:32 -0600
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 09:31:01 +
> EPEL Beta Report wrote:
>
> > Compose started at Sun Apr 27 08:15:03 UTC 2014
>
> FYI, ,composes are failing due to a conflict between two packages. :(
>
> Will dig in
On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 09:31:01 +
EPEL Beta Report wrote:
> Compose started at Sun Apr 27 08:15:03 UTC 2014
FYI, ,composes are failing due to a conflict between two packages. :(
Will dig into it more tomorrow...
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signat
ed to be retired and possibly blocked. ;(
Hopefully there's not too many other changes.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
s
> there is consensus for a different approach.
I think a number of fedora infrastructure folks might have input here,
but they are all out at pycon this week... so if you could hold off
until next week at least and I will see about pointing them to the
thread here?
kevin
signature.asc
On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 21:06:08 -0400
"Aaron W. Hsu" wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-03-29 at 09:22 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 08:34:11 -0400
> > "Aaron W. Hsu" wrote:
> >
> > > I submitted a package request a few days ago for lib
a reason for the package not being added, but I
> wanted to confirm whether the package will never be added to the
> repository?
How did you request it, and what exactly did you request?
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epe
ave tried it in January of this years and saw no response until
> yes. I have contact Kevin, but he told be, that he only forwards the
> request for further processing.
I'm doing the best I can. It's frustrating for me as well. ;(
I've just sent another mail in to folks who
another repo) with different (clear)
expectations.
> No matter of the current situation I'd love to discuss possible ways
> to improve it. So count me in as well.
Yeah, I think we can definitely always improve.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
bit dependencies
> (like SDL2) into EPEL 7.
Yeah, in order to get there we would need to build against both i686
and x86_64 CentOS. Which we could do, but we likely want to make sure
the i686 effort is good and viable first.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_
gs building.
If/when things are all up and running smoothly, we could look at making
them 'primary'.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
oject.org/wiki/EPEL/epel7
Yeah, RHEL does multilib (so I assume they build some parts 32bit and
add them into the 64bit tree.)
Until we have a 32bit tree to build against, we cannot do similar I'm
afraid.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
ec? Or is there a better solution?
I'd suggest filing a bug on appdata-tools and ask the Fedora maintainer
if they would be willing to branch and maintain in epel7.
In the mean time you could conditionalize that in your spec to not be
used for the epel7 branch.
kevin
signature.asc
Desc
bug(s) against them asking the existing maintainer if they would
like to maintain them also for epel7beta.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/m
eview bugs?
Yes they are.
I'll look at processing it later today if no one beats me to it.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 08:28:24 -0700
Dave Johansen wrote:
>
> Doh! The original email in this chain was a copy and paste/stupid user
> error on my part. No, I no longer get that issue with the llvm build
> and like Kevin pointed out, just waiting worked.
>
> But I sent two emai
ary/195114.html
Did a more recent build also fail?
Please resubmit.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
cts:
We add a EPEL specific guideline that allows forward compat packages to
NOT be parallel installable, as long as they conflict with the other
versions of that package. Would that get us to a better place?
That reduces the problems with making parallel installable compat
packages, you simply need
e minor release. But I'd be fine with
> deferring making such decisions until we have a demonstrated need
> (i.e. fix it only if packages/EPEL is actually breaking).
Sure, agreed.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
On Fri, 3 Jan 2014 01:08:54 +0800
Christopher Meng wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2014 1:02 AM, "Kevin Fenzi"
> > When we are ready for branches we will announce and that will
> > include the process and what you need to do.
>
> Thanks, but what I've seen is that someone
d what you need to do.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
holidays and as soon
as things are ready for more packages we will announce. ;)
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
On Wed, 25 Dec 2013 12:03:47 +0100
Karel Volný wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Dne pátek, 13. prosince 2013 17:42:24 CEST, Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
> > On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 18:36:48 -0700
> > "T.C. Hollingsworth" wrote:
> ...
> >> Yeah, opt-in sounds like a muc
ow? Can people start submitting builds already, or are we still
> missing some infrastructure pieces?
There's still a bit more to do before we can open things up.
epel-release needs a bit of work and we need to get this added to
mirrormanager.
Hopefully in the next few days it will be read
FYI, the "Removed Package" stuff was due to it diffing against the last
epel-6 beta package set. ;)
This is fixed and shouldn't happen in tomorrow's compose.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mai
grades are a lot more complex... Perhaps we should say
"it might work, but if not, sorry"
> Anyone have any idea whether RH used the systemd-sysv-convert
> scriptlets for their packages? I guess we should just follow them
> here...
No idea, but Fedora 19 packages s
some time after rhel7 final is
> > out (with 6 it was a few months after).
One more thing to add:
* add epel7 comps file to git comps. (Dennis already did this).
> > Can anyone think of other things we need to do?
> > Any other general questions or comment
nal is out
(with 6 it was a few months after).
Can anyone think of other things we need to do?
Any other general questions or comments ?
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.or
It's not at all too soon, and I was/am planning on writing up a more
detailed email on it very soon.
Look for that in the next few days...
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraprojec
er who updated suddenly have to relearn where the various
options are?
Finally, does it change abi/api any? If it was updated would people
have to rebuild other things to work with it?
I don't know the answers to these for ODB off hand. ;)
kevin
signature.asc
Descripti
p://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=3358
It seems to be in RHEL for 6...
but I'm not sure why it's not providing the needed dependency.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mailing list
from it.
If the date/time is set right, try doing:
URLGRABBER_DEBUG=1 yum install foo
and attach the last few hundred lines or so, that should indicate the
error.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mailing list
a side repo on repos.fedorapeople.org or the
like would be a better fit for this.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
g/2013-September/009525.html
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
ermitted to be built
or enabled in official Fedora packages."
Until there are Fedora guidelines for them, no way EPEL is going to
enable them blindly, sorry. ;)
There is work underway to craft guidelines for them, you might look at
assisting in that effort and adding needed bits for using
/bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora%20EPEL&version=el6&component=pypy
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
> asking for environment-modules 3.2.10 in EPEL5. For EL6 it was moved
> into RHEL and is at 3.2.9c.
No, there shouldn't be any requirement. There's no upgrade path between
them, they are different products.
Perhaps we should codify that on the epel guidelines p
s interactions of the
versions? (or is there a doc on it?)
Ie, of 2.6, 2.7, 3.0, which versions clients can talk to which versions
servers?
Also, is there any changes people would need to make to their puppet
manifests between 2.6 and 2.7?
In general I
y EPEL but don't have all the channels available in RHEL.
>
> If you need dependencies that are present in RHN channels besides base
> or optional, you'll need to package them in EPEL.
It's actually base os, optional, ha and lb. :)
But yes, there's no
cally does the next
one. ;)
I see builds that worked not too long ago, so I think this is already
fixed?
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
rches}' supposed to be defined?
My theory is that with just "ExclusiveArch: noarch" it won't get mashed
into any archfull repo. You'll note that the src.rpm is present... it's
just not in any of the x86_64, ppc64, i386 repos.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP
in-node-2.0.14-1.el6.noarch (epel)
>Requires: perl(Net::IP)
>
> Here is a full log from my yum install
...snip...
perl-Net-IP is in the optional channel. You need to make sure and
enable this channel in RHN to use EPEL packages.
kevin
sign
301 - 378 of 378 matches
Mail list logo
