<div dir="auto"><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Dec 13, 2021, 2:40 PM Matthew Miller <<a href="mailto:mattdm@mattdm.org">mattdm@mattdm.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I found and was briefly worried by<br>
<br>
<a href="https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms/log4j/-/tree/c9s" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms/log4j/-/tree/c9s</a><br>
<br>
this morning, and then realized that<br>
<br>
<a href="https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms/log4j/-/tree/main" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms/log4j/-/tree/main</a><br>
<br>
has "dead.package log4j package is retired for CS-626".<br>
<br>
Could the package-retirement process be updated to also retire packages in<br>
c9s branches?<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">We might do that eventually, but right now we're still in flux and sometimes reverse course on inclusion of a package in RHEL.  We want to avoid adding commits to the c9s branches that make synchronization more difficult when that occurs.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">josh</div></div>