On 3 March 2017 at 11:34, John Hodrien <J.H.Hodrien at leeds.ac.uk> wrote:> On Fri, 3 Mar 2017, Tony Mountifield wrote: > >> You mean just thrown away, or archived somewhere? Just thrown away would >> seem rather irresponsible... > > > Mirroring EPEL makes sense well before this point, as they don't keep old > versions of packages online either AFAIK. > > jh > >Indeed they aren't kept ... and since there hasn't been an EOL of EPEL before I honestly have no idea ... I've asked on the epel-devel mailing list as to whether it'll move to archive like old fedora releases do.
On 3 March 2017 at 11:47, James Hogarth <james.hogarth at gmail.com> wrote:> On 3 March 2017 at 11:34, John Hodrien <J.H.Hodrien at leeds.ac.uk> wrote: >> On Fri, 3 Mar 2017, Tony Mountifield wrote: >> >>> You mean just thrown away, or archived somewhere? Just thrown away would >>> seem rather irresponsible... >> >> >> Mirroring EPEL makes sense well before this point, as they don't keep old >> versions of packages online either AFAIK. >> >> jh >> >> > > Indeed they aren't kept ... and since there hasn't been an EOL of EPEL > before I honestly have no idea ... I've asked on the epel-devel > mailing list as to whether it'll move to archive like old fedora > releases do.My mistake - I forgot there was an EPEL4 in the mists of time .. so the last version of the repo is likely to end up here: http://archive.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/
In article <CAGkb5vfXkJcbpQWupuZG0xp8_gTgv+55+YrZf8VdF0maiO9UfQ at mail.gmail.com>, James Hogarth <james.hogarth at gmail.com> wrote:> On 3 March 2017 at 11:47, James Hogarth <james.hogarth at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 3 March 2017 at 11:34, John Hodrien <J.H.Hodrien at leeds.ac.uk> wrote: > >> On Fri, 3 Mar 2017, Tony Mountifield wrote: > >> > >>> You mean just thrown away, or archived somewhere? Just thrown away would > >>> seem rather irresponsible... > >> > >> Mirroring EPEL makes sense well before this point, as they don't keep old > >> versions of packages online either AFAIK. > >> > >> jh > > > > Indeed they aren't kept ... and since there hasn't been an EOL of EPEL > > before I honestly have no idea ... I've asked on the epel-devel > > mailing list as to whether it'll move to archive like old fedora > > releases do. > > My mistake - I forgot there was an EPEL4 in the mists of time .. so > the last version of the repo is likely to end up here: > > http://archive.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/Cool, thanks! Tony -- Tony Mountifield Work: tony at softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk Play: tony at mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org
> Am 03.03.2017 um 13:19 schrieb James Hogarth <james.hogarth at gmail.com>: > > On 3 March 2017 at 11:47, James Hogarth <james.hogarth at gmail.com> wrote: >> On 3 March 2017 at 11:34, John Hodrien <J.H.Hodrien at leeds.ac.uk> wrote: >>> On Fri, 3 Mar 2017, Tony Mountifield wrote: >>> >>>> You mean just thrown away, or archived somewhere? Just thrown away would >>>> seem rather irresponsible... >>> >>> >>> Mirroring EPEL makes sense well before this point, as they don't keep old >>> versions of packages online either AFAIK. >>> >>> jh >>> >>> >> >> Indeed they aren't kept ... and since there hasn't been an EOL of EPEL >> before I honestly have no idea ... I've asked on the epel-devel >> mailing list as to whether it'll move to archive like old fedora >> releases do. > > My mistake - I forgot there was an EPEL4 in the mists of time .. so > the last version of the repo is likely to end up here: > > http://archive.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/JFI: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-announce at lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/YTEBPQPLP7NIVR3C533EBHEAERPH26P3/ -- LF