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

Re: Unstable EPEL? (frequent package updates)



On Wed, 2 Jul 2008, Michael A. Peters wrote:

> Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> > Michael A. Peters wrote:
> > > There are a few exceptions. I do think RHEL is justified in moving Firefox
> > > to FF3. The reason is twofold -
> > >
> > > 1) Firefox has a huge codebase. It would take extreme amount of man power
> > > to continue to maintain FF 1.x without upstream.
> > >
> > > 2) The web evolves quickly, and a browser must keep in touch with modern
> > > web innovations, particularly in the area of javascript and CSS
> > > implementation.
> > >
> >
> > A small addition here; RHEL does so by releasing a minor update to the
> > entire operating system (5.2) - so everyone knows to look for changes like
> > these. Is this something EPEL can do as well?
> >
> > EPEL 5.1/nethack-3.4.3
> >
> > EPEL 5.2/nethack-4.0 (for the right reasons)
> >
> > Just a thought.
>
> To be honest, I think it would be too much effort to keep separate branches of
> EPEL for each point release just for the few cases where there is a legitimate
> reason to update a package.
>

I generally agree.  It'd be nice to have different branches and follow
them.  but I can't imagine what the world will be like with RHEL6 comes
out, by then we could be maintaining 2 or 3 different RHEL4 branches,
potentially 5 or 6 RHEL5 branches, then the RHEL6.0 branch.

For my use case anyway, EPEL's served quite well, I haven't had too many
problems and the package updates are certainly less frequent then Fedora.

	-Mike


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