Unstable EPEL? (frequent package updates)

[Felix Schwarz]

Michael Schwendt schrieb:
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 12:25:10 -0400, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Danger lies ahead. This feels like the old Fedora Extras with Core as the
> base, where you are stuck if you need base packages newer than what Core
> offers. With it comes the desire to upgrade base. And for EPEL that would
> mean to upgrade RHEL.
> 
> I think RHEL/EPEL/CentOS users should accept that they cannot get the
> latest on top of a stable [several years old] base.

I think we should not split EPEL. One repo is good (because the separation 
line between desktop and server is blurry, it will cause more work load for 
all packagers, potentially dependency problems etc)., but maybe an unstable 
branch is ok (so you can get some few selected packages which you like to get 
updated). That would essentially mirror the Debian testing system.

This topic will occur more often I think when more people start using 
CentOS/RHEL on the desktop.

But essentially EPEL should be (IMHO) about stability and reliability! What I 
would like to see is that every update needs a short reasoning why the package 
should be updated and that someone else can read the description and approve 
the update (or reject it).

Its just that I'm somewhat more relaxed when "desktop" software should be updated.

fs