[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Fedora EPEL Package Build Report 2007-08-14
- From: Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora leemhuis info>
- To: EPEL development disccusion <epel-devel-list redhat com>
- Subject: Re: Fedora EPEL Package Build Report 2007-08-14
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 06:49:43 +0200
On 15.08.2007 22:12, Mike McGrath wrote:
> Orion Poplawski wrote:
>> buildsys fedoraproject org wrote:
>>> Packages built and released for Fedora EPEL 5: 77
>>>
>>> NEW arj-3.10.22-3.el5 : Archiver for .arj files
>>> NEW audio-entropyd-1.0.0-4.el5.2 : Generate entropy from audio output
>>> NEW cabextract-1.1-5.el5 : Utility for extracting cabinet (.cab)
>>> archives
>> Perhaps NEW packages can get automatically moved from "testing" into
>> the current release tree? I know I'm still trying to build up all of
>> my Fedora packages for EPEL.
>
> This was brought up in #EPEL earlier today and I'd like to hear further
> discussion from people on the list.
>
> On the one hand. EPEL has to get installed and its not hard for people
> to install both the EPEL and testing repo at the same time. Some might
> argue that it discourages new contributors and new packages from being
> built.
>
> By pushing new packages, we are risking dep solving issues so our
> scripts would have to be changed (yet again). Anyway, I'm right on the
> line with this one (because I'm happy to enable the testing repo)
>
> What do you the rest of you think?
/me votes for "leave them in testing"
The risk of broken deps is high with the current scripts. And even if
the scripts would catch it -- all newly build packages can have problems
on their own, so it's IMHO better to have a testing period for them.
BTW, in RHEL you also get new packages only with the quarterly updates
(like yum-utils in 5.1).
CU
knurd
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]