To all EPEL packagers

Michael Stahnke mastahnke at
Thu Aug 12 17:42:21 UTC 2010

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Michael Schwendt <mschwendt at> wrote:
> I've filed lots of -1 in bodhi for EPEL 5, and that doesn't cover all issues.
> Untested packages:
>  Apparently, there are packagers, who mark their updates "stable" without
>  even having tried to install the packages while they were being offered
>  in epel-testing. This affects new packages as well as updates. It gives
>  the smell of treating EPEL as just another build target and repo to dump
>  builds at.  In one case, the packager has admitted he doesn't have an
>  installation to test with. At least using a compatible CentOS
>  installation on a multi-boot machine ought to be mandatory.
> The RubyGems stack:
>  There are several rubygem* (and ruby*) packages, which suffer from
>  unresolvable dependencies. Dunno how complete repoclosure is on EL 5
>  (e.g. with regard to Obsoletes), but it's available:
>    $ sudo yum -y install yum-utils
>    $ repoclosure | tee el5-broken-deps.log
>    $
> Missing rebuilds:
>  At least "libevent" has had a SONAME bump in the base dist.
>  Corresponding rebuilds of packages in EPEL 5 are missing.
> _______________________________________________
> epel-devel-list mailing list
> epel-devel-list at

Michael, thanks for the filings.  We're aware of many of the rubygem
issues, and have bugs opened to fix them.

I was playing with repoclosure a couple nights ago on EPEL and found
quite a few dep issues, and was concerned that I was doing something
wrong with it.  Perhaps I wasn't.

EPEL Team -- Should we start planning another bug day?  It certainly
is a goal to at least have the stable repo not have dep issues.


More information about the epel-devel-list mailing list