[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: el-4 confusion, misstatement on Wiki?



On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 06:40 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> 
> On 31.07.2007 22:19, Karsten Wade wrote:
> > Is this inaccurate/old?
> > 
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#head-8d21749b79a31472a018664cc02e7f248e53fe1e
> 
> It's IMHO accurate, but they wording maybe could be improved.

D'oh!  That wasn't what I meant to point to, but it looks like you
removed the part that confused me.  You did remove it, right?  The
changelog says, "move a part to the faq that belongs there".  But this
content is old, right?  I see you didn't put it into the FAQ.

- === What about EPEL for RHEL 4? ===
- 
- We start EPEL two years after RHEL4 started getting shipped. Pushing
- out packages today that were up2date two years ago might look a bit
- odd and will be hard to realize -- what version to choose exactly? So
- we simply take a slightly different route for EPEL4 and suggest our
- maintainers to consider using the stuff from http://centos.karan.org/
- (which are based on Fedora Extras 3) as base for packages in EPEL4 --
- that stuff is known to work and tested, so is a good base for the
- EPEL4 branch. Sure, the outcome would have looked a bit different than
- where we might have landed if we would have started EPEL two years
- ago, but well, we start now. ;-)
- 

-- 
        Karsten Wade              ^     Fedora Documentation Project 
 Sr. Developer Relations Mgr.     |  fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
   quaid.108.redhat.com           |          gpg key: AD0E0C41
////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]