Red Hat Inc.
>
> "Do not go where the path may lead,
> go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Brian Bouterse"
> To: "Elyezer Rezende"
> Cc: pulp-dev@redhat.com
> Sent: Mond
where the path may lead,
go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."
- Original Message -
From: "Brian Bouterse"
To: "Elyezer Rezende"
Cc: pulp-dev@redhat.com
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 7:06:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Pulp-dev] Upcoming epel6 Dependency
After some discussion today we determined the following will be done:
@mhrivnak is going to solicit feedback via pulp-list on how long (time or
release) users want us to continue producing el6 builds for.
I will produce a blog post identifying what this epel6 change means for EL6
Pulp users
We de
>
> Do these kinds of next steps make any sense? What are some other
> approaches or next steps that would be good/better?
>
Trying to get user feedback makes completely sense to me. Having that
feedback as early as possible will help us find how we can support Pulp
users and identify the impact o
In the EPSCO meeting today it was agreed that Django14 is to be retired no
earlier than Jan 31, 2017 and no later than March 31 2017. It's not present
from the minutes[0] but it is in the full log[1]. I was told an official
announcement will be sent to epel-devel soon.
Once we have an official sta
On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Elyezer Rezende wrote:
> How adopt option 3 will affect some of our customers? I mean there are
> projects, like Katello and Satellite, that rely on Pulp to deliver their
> functionality even on RHEL6.
>
I agree that this is an important factor. Foreman has alread
o where the path may lead,
>> go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -----
>> From: "Michael Hrivnak"
>> To: "Brian Bouterse"
>> Cc: pulp-dev@redhat.com
>> Sent: Monday, November 7, 201
t; From: "Michael Hrivnak"
> To: "Brian Bouterse"
> Cc: pulp-dev@redhat.com
> Sent: Monday, November 7, 2016 9:32:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [Pulp-dev] Upcoming epel6 Dependency Issues
>
> Thanks for the clarification. If they do end up removing Django14 from
>
lp-dev@redhat.com
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2016 9:32:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Pulp-dev] Upcoming epel6 Dependency Issues
Thanks for the clarification. If they do end up removing Django14 from epel6, I
think we have these options:
1) Provide a django package ourselves. No supported django release runs
On 11/07/2016 02:32 PM, Michael Hrivnak wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification. If they do end up removing Django14 from epel6,
> I think we have these options:
>
> 1) Provide a django package ourselves. No supported django release runs on
> python 2.6, so we would be
> providing an unsupported
Thanks for the clarification. If they do end up removing Django14 from
epel6, I think we have these options:
1) Provide a django package ourselves. No supported django release runs on
python 2.6, so we would be providing an unsupported version.
2) Show users how to install django some other way. E
That date was all wrong. The real date is Wednesday 11/9 at 18:00 UTC in
#fedora-meeting on freenode.
Yes they would add python34 to epel6, then add Django 1.8 package that only
runs on Python 3.4. Since there are a lot of cve's against Django14 they
seemed inclined to remove it soon. Packages bei
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote:
> It seems that the mongodb and Django14 packages in EPEL6 are going to be
> changing in some big ways. It's still early in the conversation, but here
> is what I've learned at the EPSCO (EPel Steering COmmitee) meeting today[0].
>
> mongodb 2
It seems that the mongodb and Django14 packages in EPEL6 are going to be
changing in some big ways. It's still early in the conversation, but here
is what I've learned at the EPSCO (EPel Steering COmmitee) meeting today[0].
mongodb 2.4 is not supported upstream from epel and EPSCO approved an
upgr
14 matches
Mail list logo
