On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 08:30:50PM +0100, Matthias Saou wrote: > FP! :-) > > Joke aside, I'd like to see which views we have on the release and > update procedure to apply to EPEL. > > - Do we want a moving (and potentially breaking) set of packages which > is constantly being updated? The CentOS way > - De we want a fixed set of packages when a RHEL release is made and > focus on major bugfixes and security updates from there on? More RHEL like You'll find that people in favour of one will come from the respective camp. *RHEL* customers are usually really fixated in using RHEL 5.3 and not something between 5.3 and 5.4. Same for Scientific Linux. CentOS OTOH more on running the latests. So, it's up to the target audience you want to please. I think RHEL's fastrack may be a good model. You prepare packages for RHEL 5.(N+1) and make it already available there. Users can then decide to stick with minor release + security updates or slide on a rolling like release from RHEL 5.N to RHEL 5.(N+1). Maybe we even have to do that that way, if we want to claim full RHEL support. Otherwise we may be enforcing different update models to RHEL users than they have with RHEL pure. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpTI5mkOqj5R.pgp
Description: PGP signature