On 08/12/15 16:07, Jamie Nguyen wrote:
> Unfortunately, I don't think this is possible until the Red Hat
> maintainer for libunwind bumps the Release.
>
> RHEL = libunwind-1.1-5
> EPEL = libunwind-1.1-10
>
> If I introduce libunwind-1.1-0.5 then it doesn't mess up RHEL but it
> *does* mess up EPE
On 08/12/15 08:58, Paul Howarth wrote:
> It's not a different version. It's an exact clone of the RHEL package
> except with "0." in front of the release to make sure the RHEL package
> "wins" where it is available. It is in fact the official EPEL
> limited-arch package policy:
>
> https://fedorap
On 07/12/15 17:40, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
FYI, this discussion might be better on the actual epel-devel list...
On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 15:17:54 +
Paul Howarth wrote:
On 07/12/15 14:59, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
...snip...
Could make a compat package in EPEL7 be an option?
This way you introduce
On 07/12/15 15:33, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Jamie Nguyen wrote:
>> So, in the general case of packages being retired from EPEL7 because
>> they have moved to RHEL, how do we avoid missing packages in the future?
>
> What is the issue with the CR CentOS repository?
It's
FYI, this discussion might be better on the actual epel-devel list...
On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 15:17:54 +
Paul Howarth wrote:
> On 07/12/15 14:59, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
...snip...
> > Could make a compat package in EPEL7 be an option?
> > This way you introduce back the version that was presen
On 07/12/15 14:59, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
>> So, in the general case of packages being retired from EPEL7 because
>> they have moved to RHEL, how do we avoid missing packages in the future?
>
> Could make a compat package in EPEL7 be an option?
> This way you introduce back the version that was
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Jamie Nguyen wrote:
> So, in the general case of packages being retired from EPEL7 because
> they have moved to RHEL, how do we avoid missing packages in the future?
What is the issue with the CR CentOS repository?
- Ken
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedorapro
ems I'm in between a rock and a hard place. By the way, I don't
actually plan on rebuilding NGINX without gperftools as that would break
it for existing users, and new users can enable CR (but that assumes the
user can figure out the solution themselves).
So, in the general case of package
;t even install NGINX in the first place.
>
> It seems I'm in between a rock and a hard place. By the way, I don't
> actually plan on rebuilding NGINX without gperftools as that would break
> it for existing users, and new users can enable CR (but that assumes the
> user
temporary solution, but
that would break NGINX for anyone using the google perftools module. If
I don't rebuild, then users can't even install NGINX in the first place.
It seems I'm in between a rock and a hard place. By the way, I don't
actually plan on rebuilding NGINX withou
10 matches
Mail list logo