Hi,
ImageMagick 6.9.12.x have a bunch security fixes since 6.9.10.x . I'd like update ImageMagick (IM) on epel8 with soname bump . ImageMagick-6.9.10 last version, have almost 2 years and keep it and just pull security patches, it would have a lot more work in my opinion.
so in epel8-build-side-52356 repo (sidetag) we got now ImageMagick-6.9.12.44-1.el8
I will rebuild these 24 packages [1] calculated with find_unblocked_orphans.py from https://pagure.io/releng/blob/main/f/scripts [2]
Best regards,
[1] Depending packages (epel8) (24): conky-manager converseen darktable digikam dvdauthor ettercap gnokii keepass latex2rtf lyx mediainfo openbabel perl-GD-SecurityImage perl-PAR-Packer playonlinux purple-discord putty stb stellarium tango-icon-theme w3m xemacs-packages-extra xfig xforms
[2] ./find_unblocked_orphans.py --release epel8 --skip-orphans --max_deps 0 ImageMagick
conky-manager (maintained by: orphan) conky-manager-2.3.4-11.el8.x86_64 requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86- 1.el8
converseen (maintained by: marionline) converseen-0.9.8.1-1.el8.src requires ImageMagick-c++-devel = 6.9.10.86-1.el8, ImageMagick-devel = 6.9.10.86-1.el8 converseen-0.9.8.1-1.el8.x86_64 requires libMagick++- 6.Q16.so.8()(64bit), libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.6()(64bit)
darktable (maintained by: asn, germano, kalev, madko) darktable-tools-noise-3.8.0-5.el8.x86_64 requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
digikam (maintained by: dvratil, kde-sig, kwizart, nucleo, rdieter, than, tuxbrewr, vjancik) digikam-6.4.0-4.el8.src requires ImageMagick-c++-devel = 6.9.10.86- 1.el8, ImageMagick-devel = 6.9.10.86-1.el8 digikam-6.4.0-4.el8.x86_64 requires libMagick++-6.Q16.so.8()(64bit), libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.6()(64bit) digikam-libs-6.4.0-4.el8.x86_64 requires libMagick++- 6.Q16.so.8()(64bit), libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.6()(64bit)
dvdauthor (maintained by: hobbes1069, sergiomb) dvdauthor-0.7.2-14.el8.src requires ImageMagick-devel = 6.9.10.86-1.el8 dvdauthor-0.7.2-14.el8.x86_64 requires libMagickCore- 6.Q16.so.6()(64bit)
ettercap (maintained by: limb) ettercap-0.8.3.1-4.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
gnokii (maintained by: limb, robert, snirkel) gnokii-0.6.31-29.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
keepass (maintained by: mavit, tpokorra) keepass-2.45-1.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
latex2rtf (maintained by: cicku, yselkowitz) latex2rtf-2.3.18-4.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8 latex2rtf-2.3.18-4.el8.x86_64 requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
lyx (maintained by: jamatos, rdieter) lyx-2.3.6-2.el8.x86_64 requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
mediainfo (maintained by: ivanromanov, vascom) mediainfo-21.09-1.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
openbabel (maintained by: alexpl, jussilehtola, rathann, sagitter, scitech_sig) openbabel-3.1.1-4.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
perl-GD-SecurityImage (maintained by: eseyman) perl-GD-SecurityImage-1.75-4.el8.noarch requires perl(Image::Magick) perl-GD-SecurityImage-1.75-4.el8.src requires perl(Image::Magick)
perl-PAR-Packer (maintained by: jplesnik, ppisar) perl-PAR-Packer-1.052-2.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
playonlinux (maintained by: robert) playonlinux-4.4-2.el8.x86_64 requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
purple-discord (maintained by: xvitaly) purple-discord-0-33.20210928gitb7ac723.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
putty (maintained by: jskarvad, olysonek, zaniyah) putty-0.76-1.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
stb (maintained by: churchyard, music) stb-0-0.7.20211022gitaf1a5bc.el8.src requires /usr/bin/convert
stellarium (maintained by: limb, s4504kr) stellarium-0.20.1-1.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
tango-icon-theme (maintained by: cottsay, mavit) tango-icon-theme-0.8.90-24.el8.src requires ImageMagick-devel = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
w3m (maintained by: pnemade, robert) w3m-img-0.5.3-50.git20210102.el8.x86_64 requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
xemacs-packages-extra (maintained by: jjames, stevetraylen) xemacs-packages-extra-20191207-1.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
xfig (maintained by: jwrdegoede, stevetraylen) xfig-3.2.7b-3.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
xforms (maintained by: rdieter, robert) xforms-1.2.4-14.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 6:23 PM Sérgio Basto sergio@serjux.com wrote:
Hi,
ImageMagick 6.9.12.x have a bunch security fixes since 6.9.10.x . I'd like update ImageMagick (IM) on epel8 with soname bump . ImageMagick-6.9.10 last version, have almost 2 years and keep it and just pull security patches, it would have a lot more work in my opinion.
so in epel8-build-side-52356 repo (sidetag) we got now ImageMagick-6.9.12.44-1.el8
I will rebuild these 24 packages [1] calculated with find_unblocked_orphans.py from https://pagure.io/releng/blob/main/f/scripts [2]
Best regards,
[1] Depending packages (epel8) (24): conky-manager converseen darktable digikam dvdauthor ettercap gnokii keepass latex2rtf lyx mediainfo openbabel perl-GD-SecurityImage perl-PAR-Packer playonlinux purple-discord putty stb stellarium tango-icon-theme w3m xemacs-packages-extra xfig xforms
[2] ./find_unblocked_orphans.py --release epel8 --skip-orphans --max_deps 0 ImageMagick
conky-manager (maintained by: orphan) conky-manager-2.3.4-11.el8.x86_64 requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86- 1.el8
converseen (maintained by: marionline) converseen-0.9.8.1-1.el8.src requires ImageMagick-c++-devel = 6.9.10.86-1.el8, ImageMagick-devel = 6.9.10.86-1.el8 converseen-0.9.8.1-1.el8.x86_64 requires libMagick++- 6.Q16.so.8()(64bit), libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.6()(64bit)
darktable (maintained by: asn, germano, kalev, madko) darktable-tools-noise-3.8.0-5.el8.x86_64 requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
digikam (maintained by: dvratil, kde-sig, kwizart, nucleo, rdieter, than, tuxbrewr, vjancik) digikam-6.4.0-4.el8.src requires ImageMagick-c++-devel = 6.9.10.86- 1.el8, ImageMagick-devel = 6.9.10.86-1.el8 digikam-6.4.0-4.el8.x86_64 requires libMagick++-6.Q16.so.8()(64bit), libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.6()(64bit) digikam-libs-6.4.0-4.el8.x86_64 requires libMagick++- 6.Q16.so.8()(64bit), libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.6()(64bit)
dvdauthor (maintained by: hobbes1069, sergiomb) dvdauthor-0.7.2-14.el8.src requires ImageMagick-devel = 6.9.10.86-1.el8 dvdauthor-0.7.2-14.el8.x86_64 requires libMagickCore- 6.Q16.so.6()(64bit)
ettercap (maintained by: limb) ettercap-0.8.3.1-4.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
gnokii (maintained by: limb, robert, snirkel) gnokii-0.6.31-29.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
keepass (maintained by: mavit, tpokorra) keepass-2.45-1.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
latex2rtf (maintained by: cicku, yselkowitz) latex2rtf-2.3.18-4.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8 latex2rtf-2.3.18-4.el8.x86_64 requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
lyx (maintained by: jamatos, rdieter) lyx-2.3.6-2.el8.x86_64 requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
mediainfo (maintained by: ivanromanov, vascom) mediainfo-21.09-1.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
openbabel (maintained by: alexpl, jussilehtola, rathann, sagitter, scitech_sig) openbabel-3.1.1-4.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
perl-GD-SecurityImage (maintained by: eseyman) perl-GD-SecurityImage-1.75-4.el8.noarch requires perl(Image::Magick) perl-GD-SecurityImage-1.75-4.el8.src requires perl(Image::Magick)
perl-PAR-Packer (maintained by: jplesnik, ppisar) perl-PAR-Packer-1.052-2.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
playonlinux (maintained by: robert) playonlinux-4.4-2.el8.x86_64 requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
purple-discord (maintained by: xvitaly) purple-discord-0-33.20210928gitb7ac723.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
putty (maintained by: jskarvad, olysonek, zaniyah) putty-0.76-1.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
stb (maintained by: churchyard, music) stb-0-0.7.20211022gitaf1a5bc.el8.src requires /usr/bin/convert
stellarium (maintained by: limb, s4504kr) stellarium-0.20.1-1.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
tango-icon-theme (maintained by: cottsay, mavit) tango-icon-theme-0.8.90-24.el8.src requires ImageMagick-devel = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
w3m (maintained by: pnemade, robert) w3m-img-0.5.3-50.git20210102.el8.x86_64 requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
xemacs-packages-extra (maintained by: jjames, stevetraylen) xemacs-packages-extra-20191207-1.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
xfig (maintained by: jwrdegoede, stevetraylen) xfig-3.2.7b-3.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
xforms (maintained by: rdieter, robert) xforms-1.2.4-14.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
-- Sérgio M. B. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
This update changes a library soname, which makes it an incompatible upgrade. It must follow the EPEL incompatible upgrades policy [0]. This email can count as step 1 once you reply with the specific CVEs this will address. Then it must be open for discussion on list for one week (step 2) before being added as an agenda item at next week's EPEL Steering Committee meeting [1] (step 3).
[0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-incompatible-upgrades/ [1] https://calendar.fedoraproject.org/epel/#m9854
On Wed, 2022-03-30 at 21:54 -0500, Carl George wrote:
On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 6:23 PM Sérgio Basto sergio@serjux.com wrote:
Hi,
ImageMagick 6.9.12.x have a bunch security fixes since 6.9.10.x . I'd like update ImageMagick (IM) on epel8 with soname bump . ImageMagick-6.9.10 last version, have almost 2 years and keep it and just pull security patches, it would have a lot more work in my opinion.
so in epel8-build-side-52356 repo (sidetag) we got now ImageMagick-6.9.12.44-1.el8
I will rebuild these 24 packages [1] calculated with find_unblocked_orphans.py from https://pagure.io/releng/blob/main/f/scripts%C2%A0%5B2]
Best regards,
[1] Depending packages (epel8) (24): conky-manager converseen darktable digikam dvdauthor ettercap gnokii keepass latex2rtf lyx mediainfo openbabel perl-GD-SecurityImage perl-PAR-Packer playonlinux purple-discord putty stb stellarium tango-icon-theme w3m xemacs-packages-extra xfig xforms
[2] ./find_unblocked_orphans.py --release epel8 --skip-orphans -- max_deps 0 ImageMagick
conky-manager (maintained by: orphan) conky-manager-2.3.4-11.el8.x86_64 requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86- 1.el8
converseen (maintained by: marionline) converseen-0.9.8.1-1.el8.src requires ImageMagick-c++-devel = 6.9.10.86-1.el8, ImageMagick-devel = 6.9.10.86-1.el8 converseen-0.9.8.1-1.el8.x86_64 requires libMagick++- 6.Q16.so.8()(64bit), libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.6()(64bit)
darktable (maintained by: asn, germano, kalev, madko) darktable-tools-noise-3.8.0-5.el8.x86_64 requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
digikam (maintained by: dvratil, kde-sig, kwizart, nucleo, rdieter, than, tuxbrewr, vjancik) digikam-6.4.0-4.el8.src requires ImageMagick-c++-devel = 6.9.10.86- 1.el8, ImageMagick-devel = 6.9.10.86-1.el8 digikam-6.4.0-4.el8.x86_64 requires libMagick++- 6.Q16.so.8()(64bit), libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.6()(64bit) digikam-libs-6.4.0-4.el8.x86_64 requires libMagick++- 6.Q16.so.8()(64bit), libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.6()(64bit)
dvdauthor (maintained by: hobbes1069, sergiomb) dvdauthor-0.7.2-14.el8.src requires ImageMagick-devel = 6.9.10.86- 1.el8 dvdauthor-0.7.2-14.el8.x86_64 requires libMagickCore- 6.Q16.so.6()(64bit)
ettercap (maintained by: limb) ettercap-0.8.3.1-4.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
gnokii (maintained by: limb, robert, snirkel) gnokii-0.6.31-29.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
keepass (maintained by: mavit, tpokorra) keepass-2.45-1.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
latex2rtf (maintained by: cicku, yselkowitz) latex2rtf-2.3.18-4.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8 latex2rtf-2.3.18-4.el8.x86_64 requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86- 1.el8
lyx (maintained by: jamatos, rdieter) lyx-2.3.6-2.el8.x86_64 requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
mediainfo (maintained by: ivanromanov, vascom) mediainfo-21.09-1.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
openbabel (maintained by: alexpl, jussilehtola, rathann, sagitter, scitech_sig) openbabel-3.1.1-4.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
perl-GD-SecurityImage (maintained by: eseyman) perl-GD-SecurityImage-1.75-4.el8.noarch requires perl(Image::Magick) perl-GD-SecurityImage-1.75-4.el8.src requires perl(Image::Magick)
perl-PAR-Packer (maintained by: jplesnik, ppisar) perl-PAR-Packer-1.052-2.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86- 1.el8
playonlinux (maintained by: robert) playonlinux-4.4-2.el8.x86_64 requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
purple-discord (maintained by: xvitaly) purple-discord-0-33.20210928gitb7ac723.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
putty (maintained by: jskarvad, olysonek, zaniyah) putty-0.76-1.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
stb (maintained by: churchyard, music) stb-0-0.7.20211022gitaf1a5bc.el8.src requires /usr/bin/convert
stellarium (maintained by: limb, s4504kr) stellarium-0.20.1-1.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
tango-icon-theme (maintained by: cottsay, mavit) tango-icon-theme-0.8.90-24.el8.src requires ImageMagick-devel = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
w3m (maintained by: pnemade, robert) w3m-img-0.5.3-50.git20210102.el8.x86_64 requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
xemacs-packages-extra (maintained by: jjames, stevetraylen) xemacs-packages-extra-20191207-1.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
xfig (maintained by: jwrdegoede, stevetraylen) xfig-3.2.7b-3.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
xforms (maintained by: rdieter, robert) xforms-1.2.4-14.el8.src requires ImageMagick = 6.9.10.86-1.el8
-- Sérgio M. B.
This update changes a library soname, which makes it an incompatible upgrade. It must follow the EPEL incompatible upgrades policy [0]. This email can count as step 1 once you reply with the specific CVEs this will address. Then it must be open for discussion on list for one week (step 2) before being added as an agenda item at next week's EPEL Steering Committee meeting [1] (step 3).
[0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-incompatible-upgrades/ [1] https://calendar.fedoraproject.org/epel/#m9854
OK , thank you
On Thu, 2022-03-31 at 11:54 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
This update changes a library soname, which makes it an incompatible upgrade. It must follow the EPEL incompatible upgrades policy [0]. This email can count as step 1 once you reply with the specific CVEs this will address. Then it must be open for discussion on list for one week (step 2) before being added as an agenda item at next week's EPEL Steering Committee meeting [1] (step 3).
[0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-incompatible-upgrades/ [1] https://calendar.fedoraproject.org/epel/#m9854
OK , thank you
Hi, have we any new ?
I'd like move on before rhel 8.6 be available .
Thank you
On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 12:46 PM Sérgio Basto sergio@serjux.com wrote:
On Thu, 2022-03-31 at 11:54 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
This update changes a library soname, which makes it an incompatible upgrade. It must follow the EPEL incompatible upgrades policy [0]. This email can count as step 1 once you reply with the specific CVEs this will address. Then it must be open for discussion on list for one week (step 2) before being added as an agenda item at next week's EPEL Steering Committee meeting [1] (step 3).
[0]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-incompatible-upgrades/
OK , thank you
Hi, have we any new ?
I'd like move on before rhel 8.6 be available .
Thank you
Hi Sérgio, Could you list the CVE's that this update addresses. If that list is fairly long, at least the important ones.
Troy
On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 13:08 -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 12:46 PM Sérgio Basto sergio@serjux.com wrote:
On Thu, 2022-03-31 at 11:54 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
This update changes a library soname, which makes it an incompatible upgrade. It must follow the EPEL incompatible upgrades policy
[0].
This email can count as step 1 once you reply with the specific CVEs this will address. Then it must be open for discussion on list
for
one week (step 2) before being added as an agenda item at next week's EPEL Steering Committee meeting [1] (step 3).
[0]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-incompatible-upgrades/
OK , thank you
Hi, have we any new ?
I'd like move on before rhel 8.6 be available .
Thank you
Hi Sérgio, Could you list the CVE's that this update addresses. If that list is fairly long, at least the important ones
we got 82 reported on bugzilla https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGN...
Troy
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject... Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 3:00 PM Sérgio Basto sergio@serjux.com wrote:
On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 13:08 -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 12:46 PM Sérgio Basto sergio@serjux.com wrote:
On Thu, 2022-03-31 at 11:54 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
This update changes a library soname, which makes it an incompatible upgrade. It must follow the EPEL incompatible upgrades policy [0]. This email can count as step 1 once you reply with the specific CVEs this will address. Then it must be open for discussion on list for one week (step 2) before being added as an agenda item at next week's EPEL Steering Committee meeting [1] (step 3).
[0]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-incompatible-upgrades/
OK , thank you
Hi, have we any new ?
I'd like move on before rhel 8.6 be available .
Thank you
Hi Sérgio, Could you list the CVE's that this update addresses. If that list is fairly long, at least the important ones
we got 82 reported on bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGN...
Youch! Next time, lead with that. :) I joke, but that's really what we were waiting for. It's a Friday afternoon, and I'm pretty certain we won't get enough of the committee reading this to give a full vote until next week. But, as for me, I give it a +1. Troy
On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 5:17 PM Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 3:00 PM Sérgio Basto sergio@serjux.com wrote:
On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 13:08 -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 12:46 PM Sérgio Basto sergio@serjux.com wrote:
On Thu, 2022-03-31 at 11:54 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
This update changes a library soname, which makes it an incompatible upgrade. It must follow the EPEL incompatible upgrades policy [0]. This email can count as step 1 once you reply with the specific CVEs this will address. Then it must be open for discussion on list for one week (step 2) before being added as an agenda item at next week's EPEL Steering Committee meeting [1] (step 3).
[0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-incompatible-upgrades/ [1] https://calendar.fedoraproject.org/epel/#m9854
OK , thank you
Hi, have we any new ?
I'd like move on before rhel 8.6 be available .
Thank you
Hi Sérgio, Could you list the CVE's that this update addresses. If that list is fairly long, at least the important ones
we got 82 reported on bugzilla https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGN...
Youch! Next time, lead with that. :) I joke, but that's really what we were waiting for. It's a Friday afternoon, and I'm pretty certain we won't get enough of the committee reading this to give a full vote until next week. But, as for me, I give it a +1. Troy
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject... Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
This was approved [0] in today's EPEL Steering Committee meeting. Please continue with the process for incompatible upgrades from step 4 forward [1].
[0] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/epel/epel.2022-04-13-20.00.html [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-incompatible-upgrades/...
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 5:05 PM Carl George carl@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 5:17 PM Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 3:00 PM Sérgio Basto sergio@serjux.com wrote:
On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 13:08 -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 12:46 PM Sérgio Basto sergio@serjux.com wrote:
On Thu, 2022-03-31 at 11:54 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
This update changes a library soname, which makes it an incompatible upgrade. It must follow the EPEL incompatible upgrades policy [0]. This email can count as step 1 once you reply with the specific CVEs this will address. Then it must be open for discussion on list for one week (step 2) before being added as an agenda item at next week's EPEL Steering Committee meeting [1] (step 3).
[0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-incompatible-upgrades/ [1] https://calendar.fedoraproject.org/epel/#m9854
OK , thank you
Hi, have we any new ?
I'd like move on before rhel 8.6 be available .
Thank you
Hi Sérgio, Could you list the CVE's that this update addresses. If that list is fairly long, at least the important ones
we got 82 reported on bugzilla https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGN...
Youch! Next time, lead with that. :) I joke, but that's really what we were waiting for. It's a Friday afternoon, and I'm pretty certain we won't get enough of the committee reading this to give a full vote until next week. But, as for me, I give it a +1. Troy
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject... Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
This was approved [0] in today's EPEL Steering Committee meeting. Please continue with the process for incompatible upgrades from step 4 forward [1].
[0] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/epel/epel.2022-04-13-20.00.html [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-incompatible-upgrades/...
-- Carl George
Based on repoquery it looks like only three packages need to be rebuilt for this.
converseen digikam dvdauthor
On Wed, 2022-04-13 at 17:54 -0500, Carl George wrote:
This was approved [0] in today's EPEL Steering Committee meeting. Please continue with the process for incompatible upgrades from step 4 forward [1].
[0] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/epel/epel.2022-04-13-20.00.html [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-incompatible-upgrades/...
-- Carl George
Based on repoquery it looks like only three packages need to be rebuilt for this.
converseen digikam dvdauthor
Correct the other package "just" use Imageagick tools , I need to check also packages that use perl(ImageMagick)
I'm going start now !
Thank you
On Wed, 2022-04-27 at 23:44 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Wed, 2022-04-13 at 17:54 -0500, Carl George wrote:
This was approved [0] in today's EPEL Steering Committee meeting. Please continue with the process for incompatible upgrades from step 4 forward [1].
[0] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/epel/epel.2022-04-13-20.00.html [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-incompatible-upgrades/...
-- Carl George
Based on repoquery it looks like only three packages need to be rebuilt for this.
converseen digikam dvdauthor
Correct the other packages "just" use Imageagick tools , I need to check also packages that use perl(ImageMagick)
I'm going start now !
digikam is updated in epel8-next , I'm doing a side-tag in epel8 .
This case brings one question , the packages of epel8-next will be branch to epel8 ? The way I see it is rhel 8.5 + epel 8 and centos stream 8 + epel 8 next , rhel 8.6 is branched from centos stream 8 and epel 8 should also be branched from epel 8 next . This implies that packages on epel 8 must have lower versions than epel 8 next .
what I should do with digikam ?
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 4:38 PM Sérgio Basto sergio@serjux.com wrote:
On Wed, 2022-04-27 at 23:44 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Wed, 2022-04-13 at 17:54 -0500, Carl George wrote:
This was approved [0] in today's EPEL Steering Committee meeting. Please continue with the process for incompatible upgrades from step 4 forward [1].
[0]
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/epel/epel.2022-04-13-20.00.html
[1]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-incompatible-upgrades/...
-- Carl George
Based on repoquery it looks like only three packages need to be rebuilt for this.
converseen digikam dvdauthor
Correct the other packages "just" use Imageagick tools , I need to check also packages that use perl(ImageMagick)
I'm going start now !
digikam is updated in epel8-next , I'm doing a side-tag in epel8 .
This case brings one question , the packages of epel8-next will be branch to epel8 ? The way I see it is rhel 8.5 + epel 8 and centos stream 8 + epel 8 next , rhel 8.6 is branched from centos stream 8 and epel 8 should also be branched from epel 8 next . This implies that packages on epel 8 must have lower versions than epel 8 next .
what I should do with digikam ?
The version in digikam epel8 and epel8-next are different. The reason is because of a package update (opencr) that is currently in CentOS Stream 8 that won't make it into RHEL 8 until RHEL 8.6. For the epel8 version, just do a bump and build like you have the other packages on your list, keeping it's version the same. I can do the epel8-next rebuild after you are done. And when RHEL 8.6 is released, I'll be bringing the higher version that is in epel8-next, over to epel8.
Troy
A qua, 27-04-2022 às 16:58 -0700, Troy Dawson escreveu:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 4:38 PM Sérgio Basto sergio@serjux.com wrote:
On Wed, 2022-04-27 at 23:44 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Wed, 2022-04-13 at 17:54 -0500, Carl George wrote:
This was approved [0] in today's EPEL Steering Committee
meeting.
Please continue with the process for incompatible upgrades
from
step 4 forward [1].
[0]
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/epel/epel.2022-04-13-20.00.html
[1]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-incompatible-upgrades/...
-- Carl George
Based on repoquery it looks like only three packages need to be rebuilt for this.
converseen digikam dvdauthor
Correct the other packages "just" use Imageagick tools , I need
to
check also packages that use perl(ImageMagick)
I'm going start now !
digikam is updated in epel8-next , I'm doing a side-tag in epel8 .
This case brings one question , the packages of epel8-next will be branch to epel8 ? The way I see it is rhel 8.5 + epel 8 and centos stream 8 + epel 8 next , rhel 8.6 is branched from centos stream 8 and epel 8 should also be branched from epel 8 next . This implies that packages on epel 8 must have lower versions than epel 8 next .
what I should do with digikam ?
The version in digikam epel8 and epel8-next are different. The reason is because of a package update (opencr) that is currently in CentOS Stream 8 that won't make it into RHEL 8 until RHEL 8.6. For the epel8 version, just do a bump and build like you have the other packages on your list, keeping it's version the same. I can do the epel8-next rebuild after you are done. And when RHEL 8.6 is released, I'll be bringing the higher version that is in epel8-next, over to epel8.
Notification time stamped 2022-04-28 00:48:53 UTC
sergiomb's digikam-6.4.0-5.el8 failed to build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1957109
:(
Troy
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject... Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
A qui, 28-04-2022 às 10:48 +0100, Sérgio Basto escreveu:
A qua, 27-04-2022 às 16:58 -0700, Troy Dawson escreveu:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 4:38 PM Sérgio Basto sergio@serjux.com wrote:
On Wed, 2022-04-27 at 23:44 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Wed, 2022-04-13 at 17:54 -0500, Carl George wrote:
This was approved [0] in today's EPEL Steering Committee
meeting.
Please continue with the process for incompatible upgrades
from
step 4 forward [1].
[0]
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/epel/epel.2022-04-13-20.00.html
[1]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-incompatible-upgrades/...
-- Carl George
Based on repoquery it looks like only three packages need to
be
rebuilt for this.
converseen digikam dvdauthor
Correct the other packages "just" use Imageagick tools , I need
to
check also packages that use perl(ImageMagick)
I'm going start now !
digikam is updated in epel8-next , I'm doing a side-tag in epel8 .
This case brings one question , the packages of epel8-next will be branch to epel8 ? The way I see it is rhel 8.5 + epel 8 and centos stream 8 + epel 8 next , rhel 8.6 is branched from centos stream 8 and epel 8 should also be branched from epel 8 next . This implies that packages on epel 8 must have lower versions than epel 8 next .
what I should do with digikam ?
The version in digikam epel8 and epel8-next are different. The reason is because of a package update (opencr) that is currently in CentOS Stream 8 that won't make it into RHEL 8 until RHEL 8.6. For the epel8 version, just do a bump and build like you have the other packages on your list, keeping it's version the same. I can do the epel8-next rebuild after you are done. And when RHEL 8.6 is released, I'll be bringing the higher version that is in epel8-next, over to epel8.
Notification time stamped 2022-04-28 00:48:53 UTC
sergiomb's digikam-6.4.0-5.el8 failed to build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1957109
:(
BTW if someone want to fix it, please built it in the side-tag epel8- build-side-52356
fedpkg build --target=epel8-build-side-52356
Troy
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject... Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedor aproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 2:57 AM Sérgio Basto sergio@serjux.com wrote:
A qui, 28-04-2022 às 10:48 +0100, Sérgio Basto escreveu:
A qua, 27-04-2022 às 16:58 -0700, Troy Dawson escreveu:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 4:38 PM Sérgio Basto sergio@serjux.com wrote:
On Wed, 2022-04-27 at 23:44 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Wed, 2022-04-13 at 17:54 -0500, Carl George wrote:
This was approved [0] in today's EPEL Steering Committee meeting. Please continue with the process for incompatible upgrades from step 4 forward [1].
[0]
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/epel/epel.2022-04-13-20.00.html
[1]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-incompatible-upgrades/...
-- Carl George
Based on repoquery it looks like only three packages need to be rebuilt for this.
converseen digikam dvdauthor
Correct the other packages "just" use Imageagick tools , I need to check also packages that use perl(ImageMagick)
I'm going start now !
digikam is updated in epel8-next , I'm doing a side-tag in epel8 .
This case brings one question , the packages of epel8-next will be branch to epel8 ? The way I see it is rhel 8.5 + epel 8 and centos stream 8 + epel 8 next , rhel 8.6 is branched from centos stream 8 and epel 8 should also be branched from epel 8 next . This implies that packages on epel 8 must have lower versions than epel 8 next .
what I should do with digikam ?
The version in digikam epel8 and epel8-next are different. The reason is because of a package update (opencr) that is currently in CentOS Stream 8 that won't make it into RHEL 8 until RHEL 8.6. For the epel8 version, just do a bump and build like you have the other packages on your list, keeping it's version the same. I can do the epel8-next rebuild after you are done. And when RHEL 8.6 is released, I'll be bringing the higher version that is in epel8-next, over to epel8.
Notification time stamped 2022-04-28 00:48:53 UTC
sergiomb's digikam-6.4.0-5.el8 failed to build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1957109
:(
BTW if someone want to fix it, please built it in the side-tag epel8-build-side-52356
fedpkg build --target=epel8-build-side-52356
Ugg ... why must digikam be this way. :( *Sigh* I know why. It's the nature of the "let's pull it all together" program. Looking into this.
On Thu, 2022-04-28 at 07:09 -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 2:57 AM Sérgio Basto sergio@serjux.com wrote:
A qui, 28-04-2022 às 10:48 +0100, Sérgio Basto escreveu:
A qua, 27-04-2022 às 16:58 -0700, Troy Dawson escreveu:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 4:38 PM Sérgio Basto sergio@serjux.com wrote:
On Wed, 2022-04-27 at 23:44 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Wed, 2022-04-13 at 17:54 -0500, Carl George wrote: > > This was approved [0] in today's EPEL Steering
Committee meeting.
> > Please continue with the process for incompatible
upgrades from
> > step 4 > > forward [1]. > > > > [0] > >
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/epel/epel.2022-04-13-20.00.html
> > [1] > >
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-incompatible-upgrades/...
> > > > -- > > Carl George > > Based on repoquery it looks like only three packages need
to be
> rebuilt for this. > > converseen > digikam > dvdauthor
Correct the other packages "just" use Imageagick tools , I
need to
check also packages that use perl(ImageMagick)
I'm going start now !
digikam is updated in epel8-next , I'm doing a side-tag in epel8 .
This case brings one question , the packages of epel8-next will be branch to epel8 ? The way I see it is rhel 8.5 + epel 8 and centos stream 8 + epel 8 next , rhel 8.6 is branched from centos stream 8 and epel 8 should also be branched from epel 8 next . This implies that packages on epel 8 must have lower versions than epel 8 next .
what I should do with digikam ?
The version in digikam epel8 and epel8-next are different. The reason is because of a package update (opencr) that is currently in CentOS Stream 8 that won't make it into RHEL 8 until RHEL 8.6. For the epel8 version, just do a bump and build like you have the other packages on your list, keeping it's version the same. I can do the epel8-next rebuild after you are done. And when RHEL 8.6 is released, I'll be bringing the higher version that is in epel8-next, over to epel8.
Notification time stamped 2022-04-28 00:48:53 UTC
sergiomb's digikam-6.4.0-5.el8 failed to build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1957109
:(
BTW if someone want to fix it, please built it in the side-tag epel8-build-side-52356
fedpkg build --target=epel8-build-side-52356
Ugg ... why must digikam be this way. :( *Sigh* I know why. It's the nature of the "let's pull it all together" program. Looking into this.
I will try the fix suggest here https://forum.qt.io/topic/122702/error-aggregate-qpainterpath-path-has-incom... ( include <QPainterPath> may be missing. Just add it. )
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject... Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
A qui, 28-04-2022 às 15:18 +0100, Sérgio Basto escreveu:
On Thu, 2022-04-28 at 07:09 -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 2:57 AM Sérgio Basto sergio@serjux.com wrote:
A qui, 28-04-2022 às 10:48 +0100, Sérgio Basto escreveu:
A qua, 27-04-2022 às 16:58 -0700, Troy Dawson escreveu:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 4:38 PM Sérgio Basto sergio@serjux.com wrote:
On Wed, 2022-04-27 at 23:44 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Wed, 2022-04-13 at 17:54 -0500, Carl George wrote: > > > This was approved [0] in today's EPEL Steering Committee meeting. > > > Please continue with the process for incompatible upgrades from > > > step 4 > > > forward [1]. > > > > > > [0] > > > https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/epel/epel.2022-04-13-20.00.html > > > [1] > > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-incompatible-upgrades/... > > > > > > -- > > > Carl George > > > > Based on repoquery it looks like only three packages need to be > > rebuilt for this. > > > > converseen > > digikam > > dvdauthor > > Correct the other packages "just" use Imageagick tools , I need to > check > also packages that use perl(ImageMagick) > > I'm going start now !
digikam is updated in epel8-next , I'm doing a side-tag in epel8 .
This case brings one question , the packages of epel8-next will be branch to epel8 ? The way I see it is rhel 8.5 + epel 8 and centos stream 8 + epel 8 next , rhel 8.6 is branched from centos stream 8 and epel 8 should also be branched from epel 8 next . This implies that packages on epel 8 must have lower versions than epel 8 next .
what I should do with digikam ?
The version in digikam epel8 and epel8-next are different. The reason is because of a package update (opencr) that is currently in CentOS Stream 8 that won't make it into RHEL 8 until RHEL 8.6. For the epel8 version, just do a bump and build like you have the other packages on your list, keeping it's version the same. I can do the epel8-next rebuild after you are done. And when RHEL 8.6 is released, I'll be bringing the higher version that is in epel8-next, over to epel8.
Notification time stamped 2022-04-28 00:48:53 UTC
sergiomb's digikam-6.4.0-5.el8 failed to build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1957109
:(
BTW if someone want to fix it, please built it in the side-tag epel8-build-side-52356
fedpkg build --target=epel8-build-side-52356
Ugg ... why must digikam be this way. :( *Sigh* I know why. It's the nature of the "let's pull it all together" program. Looking into this.
I will try the fix suggest here https://forum.qt.io/topic/122702/error-aggregate-qpainterpath-path-has-incom... ( include <QPainterPath> may be missing. Just add it. )
The fix worked .
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-62b1a9e158%C2%A0has been submitted .
The side-tag changed because the previous has disappeared , I think it was deleted because had more than 30 days ...
New side-tag is: epel8-build-side-53268
Thank you and best regards
On Fri, 2022-04-29 at 14:52 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
A qui, 28-04-2022 às 15:18 +0100, Sérgio Basto escreveu:
On Thu, 2022-04-28 at 07:09 -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 2:57 AM Sérgio Basto sergio@serjux.com wrote:
A qui, 28-04-2022 às 10:48 +0100, Sérgio Basto escreveu:
A qua, 27-04-2022 às 16:58 -0700, Troy Dawson escreveu:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 4:38 PM Sérgio Basto sergio@serjux.com wrote: > On Wed, 2022-04-27 at 23:44 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > On Wed, 2022-04-13 at 17:54 -0500, Carl George wrote: > > > > This was approved [0] in today's EPEL Steering > Committee meeting. > > > > Please continue with the process for incompatible > upgrades from > > > > step 4 > > > > forward [1]. > > > > > > > > [0] > > > > > https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/epel/epel.2022-04-13-20.00.html > > > > [1] > > > > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-incompatible-upgrades/... > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Carl George > > > > > > Based on repoquery it looks like only three packages > need to be > > > rebuilt for this. > > > > > > converseen > > > digikam > > > dvdauthor > > > > Correct the other packages "just" use Imageagick tools > , I need to > > check > > also packages that use perl(ImageMagick) > > > > I'm going start now ! > > digikam is updated in epel8-next , I'm doing a side-tag > in epel8 . > > This case brings one question , the packages of epel8- > next will be > branch to epel8 ? > The way I see it is rhel 8.5 + epel 8 and centos stream 8 > + epel 8 next > , rhel 8.6 is branched from centos stream 8 and epel 8 > should also be > branched from epel 8 next . This implies that packages on > epel 8 must > have lower versions than epel 8 next . > > > what I should do with digikam ? >
The version in digikam epel8 and epel8-next are different. The reason is because of a package update (opencr) that is currently in CentOS Stream 8 that won't make it into RHEL 8 until RHEL 8.6. For the epel8 version, just do a bump and build like you have the other packages on your list, keeping it's version the same. I can do the epel8-next rebuild after you are done. And when RHEL 8.6 is released, I'll be bringing the higher version that is in epel8-next, over to epel8.
Notification time stamped 2022-04-28 00:48:53 UTC
sergiomb's digikam-6.4.0-5.el8 failed to build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1957109
:(
BTW if someone want to fix it, please built it in the side-tag epel8-build-side-52356
fedpkg build --target=epel8-build-side-52356
Ugg ... why must digikam be this way. :( *Sigh* I know why. It's the nature of the "let's pull it all together" program. Looking into this.
I will try the fix suggest here https://forum.qt.io/topic/122702/error-aggregate-qpainterpath-path-has-incom... ( include <QPainterPath> may be missing. Just add it. )
The fix worked .
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-62b1a9e158%C2%A0h as been submitted .
The side-tag changed because the previous has disappeared , I think it was deleted because had more than 30 days ...
New side-tag is: epel8-build-side-53268
I decided to update ImageMagick on epel8 and sync it with Fedora with some modifications (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ImageMagick/c/4a0cb27f7f0603f259463e3052c... )
so IM update will stay in testing more 8 days
Best regards,
-- Sérgio M. B.
On Sun, 2022-05-08 at 16:16 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Fri, 2022-04-29 at 14:52 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
A qui, 28-04-2022 às 15:18 +0100, Sérgio Basto escreveu:
On Thu, 2022-04-28 at 07:09 -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 2:57 AM Sérgio Basto sergio@serjux.com wrote:
A qui, 28-04-2022 às 10:48 +0100, Sérgio Basto escreveu:
A qua, 27-04-2022 às 16:58 -0700, Troy Dawson escreveu: > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 4:38 PM Sérgio Basto > sergio@serjux.com wrote: > > On Wed, 2022-04-27 at 23:44 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > > On Wed, 2022-04-13 at 17:54 -0500, Carl George wrote: > > > > > This was approved [0] in today's EPEL Steering > > Committee meeting. > > > > > Please continue with the process for incompatible > > upgrades from > > > > > step 4 > > > > > forward [1]. > > > > > > > > > > [0] > > > > > > > https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/epel/epel.2022-04-13-20.00.html > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-incompatible-upgrades/... > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Carl George > > > > > > > > Based on repoquery it looks like only three > > packages need to be > > > > rebuilt for this. > > > > > > > > converseen > > > > digikam > > > > dvdauthor > > > > > > Correct the other packages "just" use Imageagick > > tools , I need to > > > check > > > also packages that use perl(ImageMagick) > > > > > > I'm going start now ! > > > > digikam is updated in epel8-next , I'm doing a side-tag > > in epel8 . > > > > This case brings one question , the packages of epel8- > > next will be > > branch to epel8 ? > > The way I see it is rhel 8.5 + epel 8 and centos stream > > 8 + epel 8 next > > , rhel 8.6 is branched from centos stream 8 and epel 8 > > should also be > > branched from epel 8 next . This implies that packages > > on epel 8 must > > have lower versions than epel 8 next . > > > > > > what I should do with digikam ? > > > > > The version in digikam epel8 and epel8-next are > different. The reason is because of a package update > (opencr) that is currently in CentOS Stream 8 that won't > make it into RHEL 8 until RHEL 8.6. > For the epel8 version, just do a bump and build like you > have the other packages on your list, keeping it's > version the same. > I can do the epel8-next rebuild after you are done. And > when RHEL 8.6 is released, I'll be bringing the higher > version that is in epel8-next, over to epel8.
Notification time stamped 2022-04-28 00:48:53 UTC
sergiomb's digikam-6.4.0-5.el8 failed to build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1957109
:(
BTW if someone want to fix it, please built it in the side- tag epel8-build-side-52356
fedpkg build --target=epel8-build-side-52356
Ugg ... why must digikam be this way. :( *Sigh* I know why. It's the nature of the "let's pull it all together" program. Looking into this.
I will try the fix suggest here https://forum.qt.io/topic/122702/error-aggregate-qpainterpath-path-has-incom... ( include <QPainterPath> may be missing. Just add it. )
The fix worked .
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-62b1a9e158 has been submitted .
The side-tag changed because the previous has disappeared , I think it was deleted because had more than 30 days ...
New side-tag is: epel8-build-side-53268
I decided to update ImageMagick on epel8 and sync it with Fedora with some modifications (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ImageMagick/c/4a0cb27f7f0603f259463e3052c... )
so IM update will stay in testing more 8 days
Pushed to stable today ( 2022-05-20T00:34:11Z )
81 security bugs closed 😀️
I going rebuild Ddigikam for epel8-next now , I'm just testing a scratch build here https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=87285269%C2%A0, ok ?
Best regards
Best regards,
-- Sérgio M. B. _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject... Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Hi Sérgio, We aren't sure if you saw this or not, but you have permission to move ahead with the re-builds. Let us know if you need help with anything.
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 3:06 PM Carl George carl@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 5:17 PM Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 3:00 PM Sérgio Basto sergio@serjux.com wrote:
On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 13:08 -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 12:46 PM Sérgio Basto sergio@serjux.com wrote:
On Thu, 2022-03-31 at 11:54 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
This update changes a library soname, which makes it an incompatible upgrade. It must follow the EPEL incompatible upgrades policy [0]. This email can count as step 1 once you reply with the specific CVEs this will address. Then it must be open for discussion on list for one week (step 2) before being added as an agenda item at next week's EPEL Steering Committee meeting [1] (step 3).
[0]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-incompatible-upgrades/
OK , thank you
Hi, have we any new ?
I'd like move on before rhel 8.6 be available .
Thank you
Hi Sérgio, Could you list the CVE's that this update addresses. If that list is fairly long, at least the important ones
we got 82 reported on bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGN...
Youch! Next time, lead with that. :) I joke, but that's really what we were waiting for. It's a Friday afternoon, and I'm pretty certain we won't get enough of
the committee reading this to give a full vote until next week.
But, as for me, I give it a +1. Troy
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject...
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
This was approved [0] in today's EPEL Steering Committee meeting. Please continue with the process for incompatible upgrades from step 4 forward [1].
[0] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/epel/epel.2022-04-13-20.00.html [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-incompatible-upgrades/...
-- Carl George _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject... Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
On Thu, 2022-04-21 at 12:35 -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
Hi Sérgio, We aren't sure if you saw this or not, but you have permission to move ahead with the re-builds. Let us know if you need help with anything.
Hi, thank you , I'm aware, I will try do it this weekend .
I have a issue in email client ( evolution ) which me prevents me to select text, in my remote desktop, which limits me to write emails properly ...
Best regards,
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 3:06 PM Carl George carl@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 5:17 PM Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 3:00 PM Sérgio Basto sergio@serjux.com
wrote:
On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 13:08 -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 12:46 PM Sérgio Basto sergio@serjux.com
wrote:
On Thu, 2022-03-31 at 11:54 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
This update changes a library soname, which makes it an incompatible upgrade. It must follow the EPEL incompatible upgrades
policy [0].
This email can count as step 1 once you reply with the
specific
CVEs this will address. Then it must be open for discussion on
list for
one week (step 2) before being added as an agenda item at
next
week's EPEL Steering Committee meeting [1] (step 3).
[0]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-incompatible-upgrades/
OK , thank you
Hi, have we any new ?
I'd like move on before rhel 8.6 be available .
Thank you
Hi Sérgio, Could you list the CVE's that this update addresses. If that list is fairly long, at least the important ones
we got 82 reported on bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGN...
Youch! Next time, lead with that. :) I joke, but that's really what we were waiting for. It's a Friday afternoon, and I'm pretty certain we won't get
enough of the committee reading this to give a full vote until next week.
But, as for me, I give it a +1. Troy
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to
epel-devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject...
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
This was approved [0] in today's EPEL Steering Committee meeting. Please continue with the process for incompatible upgrades from step 4 forward [1].
[0]
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/epel/epel.2022-04-13-20.00.html
[1]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-incompatible-upgrades/...
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Carl George -
Sérgio Basto -
Troy Dawson