[Pulp-dev] Upcoming epel6 Dependency Issues

[Brian Bouterse]

A few updates on this area:

- mhrivnak drafted an e-mail to go to pulp-list asking for feedback on when
we should stop building for EL6.
- I've drafted a blog post [0] that will be published in a way coordinated
with the pulp-list e-mail

- It would appear that Django 1.8 may be added to EPEL6 along with the
python27 (non-scl) runtime. Read more about that here[1] and the python27
runtime would be from here[2]. I don't think this changes the proposal for
us to stop building and supporting EL6, but it is some info I wanted to
relay.

[0]: https://github.com/pulp/pulpproject.org/pull/26/files
[1]:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/7QXMTUFUXEQ6BSEWHA3VWGU2H7VETR4P/
[2]:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/python/python2.7_epel6/packages/


On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Ina Panova <ipanova at redhat.com> wrote:

> I like this approach.
>
> w/r to the blog post, would be good to explicitly point the users to give
> feedback on pulp-list (who knows, maybe not every user is aware of this
> list), since the comments are disabled.
>
>
> --------
> Regards,
>
> Ina Panova
> Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc.
>
> "Do not go where the path may lead,
>  go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Bouterse" <bbouters at redhat.com>
> To: "Elyezer Rezende" <erezende at redhat.com>
> Cc: pulp-dev at redhat.com
> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 7:06:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [Pulp-dev] Upcoming epel6 Dependency Issues
>
> After some discussion today we determined the following will be done:
>
> @mhrivnak is going to solicit feedback via pulp-list on how long (time or
> release) users want us to continue producing el6 builds for.
> I will produce a blog post identifying what this epel6 change means for
> EL6 Pulp users
>
> We decided to not enable comments on blog posts to keep the discussion in
> one place (pulp-list). Thank you @elyezer for the feedback.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Elyezer Rezende < erezende at redhat.com >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Do these kinds of next steps make any sense? What are some other
> approaches or next steps that would be good/better?
>
> Trying to get user feedback makes completely sense to me. Having that
> feedback as early as possible will help us find how we can support Pulp
> users and identify the impact of dropping RHEL6 support.
>
> About enabling comments on blog posts I remember we talking about that for
> other reason and maybe this is a good opportunity to have it.
>
> --
> Elyézer Rezende
> Senior Quality Engineer
> irc: elyezer
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20161116/9e4e6529/attachment.htm>