Packages in EL-6 beta 2 and EPEL-6

[Mark Chappell]

perl-Email-Date-Format, cairomm and wordnet appear to be in all arches
for beta 2 and should probably be removed from EPEL-6

perl-HTML-Format, perl-Class-Data-Inheritable, perl-Class-Trigger,
perl-Font-AFM, perl-PadWalker, perl-File-Copy-Recursive and libart_lgpl

appear to be newer versions in EPEL than in RHEL-6 beta 2, please could
you rebuild using the SRPMs available from the RedHat repositories
available at ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/rhel/beta/5.90Server

Mark

[Iain Arnell]

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Mark Chappell  wrote:
> perl-Email-Date-Format, cairomm and wordnet appear to be in all arches
> for beta 2 and should probably be removed from EPEL-6
>
> perl-HTML-Format, perl-Class-Data-Inheritable, perl-Class-Trigger,
> perl-Font-AFM, perl-PadWalker, perl-File-Copy-Recursive and libart_lgpl
>
> appear to be newer versions in EPEL than in RHEL-6 beta 2, please could
> you rebuild using the SRPMs available from the RedHat repositories
> available at ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/rhel/beta/5.90Server

in EL-6, I see ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/rhel/beta/5.90Server/optional/source/SRPMS/perl-PadWalker-1.9-1.el6.src.rpm
and in EPEL-6 (or at least, the only EL-6 build in koji), it's
http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/perl-PadWalker/1.9/1.el6/src/perl...

Unless I'm missing something really obvious, they look the same to me.

[Mark Chappell]

Iain Arnell wrote:
> Unless I'm missing something really obvious, they look the same to me.

That's odd, repoquery appears to have spat out something odd...

RHELBASE="http://www.mirrorservice.org/sites/ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/"
RHELBASE="$RHELBASE/rhel/beta/5.90Server/"

repoquery --disablerepo=* --archlist=src \
        --repofrompath=rhel-optional-source,$RHELBASE/optional/source/ \
        --repofrompath=rhel-source,$RHELBASE/source/ \
        --enablerepo=rhel-optional-source --enablerepo=rhel-source \
        --qf='%{name} %{name}-%{version}-%{release}' \
    perl-PadWalker

[Marcela Mašláňová]

On 07/20/2010 10:49 AM, Mark Chappell wrote:
> perl-Email-Date-Format,

mark as dead
> cairomm and wordnet appear to be in all arches
> for beta 2 and should probably be removed from EPEL-6
>
> perl-HTML-Format,

2.04-11.1.el6, 2.04-13
> perl-Class-Data-Inheritable,

0.08-3.1.el6, 0.08-5
> perl-Class-Trigger,

0.13-2.1.el6, 0.14-2
> perl-Font-AFM,

1.20-3.1.el6, 1.20-5
> perl-PadWalker,

1.9-1.el6, 1.9-1
> perl-File-Copy-Recursive

0.38-4.el6, 0.38-1
> and libart_lgpl
>
> appear to be newer versions in EPEL than in RHEL-6 beta 2, please could
> you rebuild using the SRPMs available from the RedHat repositories
> available at ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/rhel/beta/5.90Server
>
> Mark

IMHO only perl-Class-Trigger has different version, but EL-5 < RHEL-6
and RHEL-6 < EL-6.

Could you point me to some guidelines about NVRs in EPEL? I suppose
there is no rule, which say that RHEL-6.0 must have bigger NVRs than EL-6.

Regards,
Marcela

[Dennis Gilmore]

On Wednesday, July 21, 2010 08:39:56 am Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> On 07/20/2010 10:49 AM, Mark Chappell wrote:
> > perl-Email-Date-Format,
>
> mark as dead
> > cairomm and wordnet appear to be in all arches
> > for beta 2 and should probably be removed from EPEL-6
> >
> > perl-HTML-Format,
>
> 2.04-11.1.el6, 2.04-13
> > perl-Class-Data-Inheritable,
>
> 0.08-3.1.el6, 0.08-5
> > perl-Class-Trigger,
>
> 0.13-2.1.el6, 0.14-2
> > perl-Font-AFM,
>
> 1.20-3.1.el6, 1.20-5
> > perl-PadWalker,
>
> 1.9-1.el6, 1.9-1
> > perl-File-Copy-Recursive
>
> 0.38-4.el6, 0.38-1
> > and libart_lgpl
> >
> > appear to be newer versions in EPEL than in RHEL-6 beta 2, please could
> > you rebuild using the SRPMs available from the RedHat repositories
> > available at ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/rhel/beta/5.90Server
> >
> > Mark
>
> IMHO only perl-Class-Trigger has different version, but EL-5 < RHEL-6
> and RHEL-6 < EL-6.
>
> Could you point me to some guidelines about NVRs in EPEL? I suppose
> there is no rule, which say that RHEL-6.0 must have bigger NVRs than EL-6.

There is no supported  upgrade path i know of from rhel5 to rhel6 without 
reinstalling. If Red Hat ships a version in optional on one arch thats less 
than the el-5 version we still must use the rhel5 version for the other arches

Dennis

[Dennis Gilmore]

On Wednesday, July 21, 2010 10:20:11 am Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 21, 2010 08:39:56 am Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> > On 07/20/2010 10:49 AM, Mark Chappell wrote:
> > > perl-Email-Date-Format,
> >
> > mark as dead
> > > cairomm and wordnet appear to be in all arches
> > > for beta 2 and should probably be removed from EPEL-6
> > >
> > > perl-HTML-Format,
> >
> > 2.04-11.1.el6, 2.04-13
> > > perl-Class-Data-Inheritable,
> >
> > 0.08-3.1.el6, 0.08-5
> > > perl-Class-Trigger,
> >
> > 0.13-2.1.el6, 0.14-2
> > > perl-Font-AFM,
> >
> > 1.20-3.1.el6, 1.20-5
> > > perl-PadWalker,
> >
> > 1.9-1.el6, 1.9-1
> > > perl-File-Copy-Recursive
> >
> > 0.38-4.el6, 0.38-1
> > > and libart_lgpl
> > >
> > > appear to be newer versions in EPEL than in RHEL-6 beta 2, please could
> > > you rebuild using the SRPMs available from the RedHat repositories
> > > available at ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/rhel/beta/5.90Server
> > >
> > > Mark
> >
> > IMHO only perl-Class-Trigger has different version, but EL-5 < RHEL-6
> > and RHEL-6 < EL-6.
> >
> > Could you point me to some guidelines about NVRs in EPEL? I suppose
> > there is no rule, which say that RHEL-6.0 must have bigger NVRs than
> > EL-6.
>
> There is no supported  upgrade path i know of from rhel5 to rhel6 without
> reinstalling. If Red Hat ships a version in optional on one arch thats less
> than the el-5 version we still must use the rhel5 version for the other
> arches

sorry we must build the rhel6 version in epel

Dennis

[Mark Chappell]

Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> On 07/20/2010 10:49 AM, Mark Chappell wrote:
> > perl-Email-Date-Format,
>
> mark as dead

Is anyone from RedHat able to comment on the question:
At which point in the EL-6.0 cycle is the collection of packages likely
to become fixed ? (I don't mean version numbers)

In other words is there going to be a point prior to GA at which we can
do a final prune so as not to accidentally override something early in
the process?

We've had packages leave and enter between beta 1 and 2, which has
broken packages in EPEL-6 (missing deps) and has also resulted in
packages not quite having a version match between RHEL-6 (b2) and EPEL-6

Mark

[Paul Howarth]

On 20/07/10 09:49, Mark Chappell wrote:
> perl-Email-Date-Format, cairomm and wordnet appear to be in all arches
> for beta 2 and should probably be removed from EPEL-6
>
> perl-HTML-Format, perl-Class-Data-Inheritable, perl-Class-Trigger,
> perl-Font-AFM, perl-PadWalker, perl-File-Copy-Recursive and libart_lgpl
>
> appear to be newer versions in EPEL than in RHEL-6 beta 2, please could
> you rebuild using the SRPMs available from the RedHat repositories
> available at ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/rhel/beta/5.90Server

Just come across another one:

EL-6 Beta 2 refresh: perl-Test-Perl-Critic-1.01-7.1.el6
EPEL-6:              perl-Test-Perl-Critic-1.02-1.el6

Paul.