Re: Unstable EPEL? (frequent package updates)

[Andy Gospodarek <gospo redhat com>]

On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 05:46:15PM +0200, Felix Schwarz wrote:
> Andy Gospodarek schrieb:
> >Well put, Paul.  Packages that mostly run standalone are appropriate
> >candidates for a rebase (like freehoo and firefox), but those that serve
> >as libraries or building blocks for other components should try to stay
> >as stable as possible from an ABI/API perspective.
> 
> I would like to add the distinction between "server" and "desktop" software.
> While both categories are not always disjoint, it this the distinction is 
> useful
> nevertheless: Some things like Firefox, OpenOffice etc. can be updated more
> often than something like Exim, Apache, ...
> 

That is an excellent point.  Should we consider breaking EPEL into an
EPEL-Base and EPEL-Desktop?  If we had separate repos it might be
helpful.

I would be in favor of that and then possibly change the way we queue
something to move from testing to stable so that it can remain in
testing longer.