search for: e34fea82

...gt; So what do you think about the underlying issue? Under what >> argumentation does it NOT constitute to be an issue? >> > Modules suck .. :) > > But that is built and in the repo .. > > dnf list 'nginx*' > > nginx.x86_64 > 1:1.14.1-9.module_el8.0.0+184+e34fea82 AppStream > nginx-all-modules.noarch > 1:1.14.1-9.module_el8.0.0+184+e34fea82 AppStream > nginx-filesystem.noarch > 1:1.14.1-9.module_el8.0.0+184+e34fea82 AppStream > nginx-mod-http-image-filter.x86_64 > 1:1.14.1-9.module_el8.0.0+...

On 04/08/2020 23:50, Jon Pruente wrote: > On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 11:34 AM <centos at niob.at> wrote: > >> Q5) If the answer to the last question is "no": shouldn't there be such >> a resource? >> > CentOS doesn't publish security errata. If you need it then you should > either buy RHEL, or deal with putting together your own set up with >

...such an answer is not very helpful. > > So what do you think about the underlying issue? Under what > argumentation does it NOT constitute to be an issue? > Modules suck .. :) But that is built and in the repo .. dnf list 'nginx*' nginx.x86_64 1:1.14.1-9.module_el8.0.0+184+e34fea82 AppStream nginx-all-modules.noarch 1:1.14.1-9.module_el8.0.0+184+e34fea82 AppStream nginx-filesystem.noarch 1:1.14.1-9.module_el8.0.0+184+e34fea82 AppStream nginx-mod-http-image-filter.x86_64 1:1.14.1-9.module_el8.0.0+184+e34fea82...

...lying issue? Under what >>> argumentation does it NOT constitute to be an issue? >>> >> Modules suck .. :) >> >> But that is built and in the repo .. >> >> dnf list 'nginx*' >> >> nginx.x86_64 >> 1:1.14.1-9.module_el8.0.0+184+e34fea82????????????????? AppStream >> nginx-all-modules.noarch >> 1:1.14.1-9.module_el8.0.0+184+e34fea82????????????????? AppStream >> nginx-filesystem.noarch >> 1:1.14.1-9.module_el8.0.0+184+e34fea82????????????????? AppStream >> nginx-mod-http-image-filter.x86_64 >> 1:...