On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:38 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 23 August 2017 at 10:01, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 7:17 AM Richard Grainger <grainger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> I'm trying to figure out what to do here. We can't just put back the >>> http-parser in EPEL unfortunately because the RHEL folks unintentionally >>> released a lower NVR for the official package. If we put ours back, it would >>> supersede RHEL and take them out of support on any package linking against >>> it (which now includes parts of SSSD). >> >> We should really be bumping and pushing an errata if RHEL picked up > > I am not sure who the we here is. I am guessing Red Hat but it could > also be EPEL. If there is something we can do inside of EPEL, I will > try to get it done this week. We is Red Hat EL platform engineering, nothing EPEL can do. >> the EPEL package and pulled it into core RHEL anyway because if people >> had been previously using it in EPEL for other reasons (and 100s of >> enterprises do sync EPEL) they would already be in a situation where >> they're running an unsupported version, there is no other fix to that >> and Red Hat engineering needs to improve their processes in this >> regard because there is a number of these issues each el7 cycle. >> > > The usual issue is the following: > > 1. The package gets pulled into RHEL-7-next by whatever arcane > processes does that. > 2. The owner usually fixes some problem and thinks that the version > they are pushing with the fix will be accepted internally. > 3. The fix is too late in the arcane processes and RHEL ships with an > older version. > 4. Everyone points fingers at each other for a couple of months after > a release. Someone tries to iron out problems. > 5. We have a good release cycle next time. > 6. Some arcane process changes > 7. Goto 1. > > I think we have done this dance every other minor release since 5.1 > > I have some ideas on how we can try to 'fix' this from now on that I > will be presenting at FLOCK next week so that releng and related > groups can fix/kill. Sure, but it's a Red Hat not a Fedora/EPEL problem so I don't actually see how a Flock presentation can fix it, it needs internal product management etc to put together a process to deal. >>> I'm going to spend a little time today trying to figure out if I can fix the >>> OpenSSL 1.0.1 compatibility patch and push out an update that will work with >>> the bundled http-parser for now. >> >> Can you not just rebuild nodejs, which will rebuild the bundled >> http-parser, against the new 1.0.2 build in 7.4? >> _______________________________________________ >> epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > -- > Stephen J Smoogen. > _______________________________________________ > epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
