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

Re: Unstable EPEL? (frequent package updates)



On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 09:33:08AM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 12:25:10PM -0400, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> Would the same package exist potentially in either repository?  I'm
> just trying to think how this might effect CentOS users who don't have
> the concept of Desktop/Server...

Good question.  I would think that EPEL-Desktop would be everything and
EPEL-Base would be just the components that we deem important enough to
not take huge backports each time.  Basically Base would be a subset of
Desktop.



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