[HEADS UP] ImageMagick side-tag for epel8

[Sérgio Basto]

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.

[Carl George]

On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 6:23 PM Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt; 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(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)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/[e-mail]
>  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

-- 
Carl George

[Sérgio Basto]

On Wed, 2022-03-30 at 21:54 -0500, Carl George wrote:
>  On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 6:23 PM Sérgio Basto
> <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt;
>  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. 
>  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 

-- 
Sérgio M. B.

[Sérgio Basto]

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  



-- 
Sérgio M. B.

[Troy Dawson]

On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 12:46 PM Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt; 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.

Troy

[Sérgio Basto]

On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 13:08 -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
>  
>  
>  On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 12:46 PM Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt;
>  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=ASS...







>  Troy
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to
>  epel-devel-leave(a)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/[e-mail]...
>  Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
>  https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure 
-- 
Sérgio M. B.

[Troy Dawson]

On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 3:00 PM Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt; 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(a)serjux.com&gt; 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=ASS...
>  
 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

[Carl George]

On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 5:17 PM Troy Dawson <tdawson(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 3:00 PM Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt; 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(a)serjux.com&gt; 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=ASS...
>
>
>   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(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave(a)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/[e-mail]...
>  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-upgrad...

-- 
Carl George

[Carl George]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 5:05 PM Carl George <carl(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 5:17 PM Troy Dawson <tdawson(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 3:00 PM Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt; 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(a)serjux.com&gt; 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=ASS...
>  >
>  >
>  >  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(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  > To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave(a)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/[e-mail]...
>  > 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-upgrad...
>
>  --
>  Carl George 
Based on repoquery it looks like only three packages need to be
rebuilt for this.

converseen
digikam
dvdauthor

-- 
Carl George

[Sérgio Basto]

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-upgrad...
>  > 
>  > --
>  > 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 

-- 
Sérgio M. B.

[Sérgio Basto]

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-upgrad...
>  > > 
>  > > --
>  > > 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 ? 





-- 
Sérgio M. B.

[Troy Dawson]

On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 4:38 PM Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt; 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-upgrad...
>  > > >
>  > > > --
>  > > > 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

[Sérgio Basto]

A qua, 27-04-2022 às 16:58 -0700, Troy Dawson escreveu:
>  
>  
>  On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 4:38 PM Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt;
>  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-upgrad...
>  > > > > 
>  > > > > --
>  > > > > 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(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to
>  epel-devel-leave(a)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/[e-mail]...
>  Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
>  https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure 
-- 
Sérgio M. B.

[Sérgio Basto]

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(a)serjux.com&gt;
>  > 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-upgrad...
>  > > > > > 
>  > > > > > --
>  > > > > > 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(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  > To unsubscribe send an email to
>  > epel-devel-leave(a)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/[e-mail]...
>  > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
>  > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to 
>  epel-devel-leave(a)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/[e-mail]
>  aproject.org
>  Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
>  https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure 
-- 
Sérgio M. B.

[Troy Dawson]

On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 2:57 AM Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt; 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(a)serjux.com&gt; 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-upgrad...
>  > > >
>  > > > --
>  > > > 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.

[Sérgio Basto]

On Thu, 2022-04-28 at 07:09 -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
>  
>  
>  On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 2:57 AM Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt;
>  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(a)serjux.com&gt; 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-upgrad...
>  > > > > > > > 
>  > > > > > > > --
>  > > > > > > > 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-in...
( include <QPainterPath> may be missing. Just add it. ) 


>  _______________________________________________
>  epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to
>  epel-devel-leave(a)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/[e-mail]...
>  Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
>  https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure 
-- 
Sérgio M. B.

[Sérgio Basto]

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(a)serjux.com&gt;
>  > 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(a)serjux.com&gt; 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-upgrad...
>  > > > > > > > > 
>  > > > > > > > > --
>  > > > > > > > > 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-in...
>  ( 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 

Thank you and best regards
-- 
Sérgio M. B.

[Sérgio Basto]

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(a)serjux.com&gt;
>  > > 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(a)serjux.com&gt; 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-upgrad...
>  > > > > > > > > > 
>  > > > > > > > > > --
>  > > > > > > > > > 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-in...
>  > ( include <QPainterPath> may be missing. Just add it. ) 
>  
>  The fix worked .
>  
>  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-62b1a9e158 h
>  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/4a0cb27f7f0603f259463e3052c4aa2b8cafec59?branch=epel8
 )

 so IM update will stay  in testing  more 8 days

Best regards,

-- 
Sérgio M. B.

[Sérgio Basto]

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(a)serjux.com&gt; 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(a)serjux.com&gt; 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-upgrad...
>  > > > > > > > > > > 
>  > > > > > > > > > > --
>  > > > > > > > > > > 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-in...
>  > > ( 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/4a0cb27f7f0603f259463e3052c4aa2b8cafec59?branch=epel8
>   )
>  
>   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 , ok
? 


Best regards


>  Best regards,
>  
>  -- 
>  Sérgio M. B.
>  _______________________________________________
>  epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to
>  epel-devel-leave(a)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/[e-mail]...
>  Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
>  https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure 
-- 
Sérgio M. B.

[Troy Dawson]

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(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 5:17 PM Troy Dawson <tdawson(a)redhat.com&gt;
> wrote:
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 3:00 PM Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt; 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(a)serjux.com&gt; 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=ASS...
>  >
>  >
>  >  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(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  > To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave(a)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/[e-mail]...
>  > 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-upgrad...
>
>  --
>  Carl George
>  _______________________________________________
>  epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave(a)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/[e-mail]...
>  Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
>  https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
>

[Sérgio Basto]

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(a)redhat.com&gt;
> wrote:
>  > On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 5:17 PM Troy Dawson <tdawson(a)redhat.com&gt;
>  > wrote:
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 3:00 PM Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt;
>  > 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(a)serjux.com&gt;
>  > 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=ASS...
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >  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(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  > > To unsubscribe send an email to
>  > epel-devel-leave(a)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/[e-mail]...
>  > > 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-upgrad...
>  >  
-- 
Sérgio M. B.