kyum is retired.

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 18:53:24 +0200
fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:

> On 26.06.2008 21:28, Jochen Schmitt wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:42:31 +0200, you wrote:
> >> So in the end it's just choosing the least evil thing to do. Maybe 
> >> that's just keeping kyum in the repo; as the yum-ABI shouldn't
> >> change it might be the least evil and easiest thing to do as long
> >> as no security problem are found.
> > [...]
> > There are some bugs in the package, which will never been fixed.
> 
> That's life. We are just distributing things (or software, to be
> precise). We do that at no cost and if the instance that creates the
> thing we distribute(d) stops to maintain the thing then it's IMHO not
> our task to clean everything up behind then. Just keeping it in the 
> repos IMHO is what we normally should do, as taking things away is 
> likely not something users like much.

Agreed. 

> > I can rebuild the package, if there may be any build dependencies
> > issues,
> 
> This is RHEL where something like that should not happen ;-)
> 
> > but there will be never get a version which is migrated to QT4.
> 
> Doesn't matter much ;-)
> 
> BTW, now that I'm thinking about it: *maybe* it might be nice to ship
> a final update for EPEL kyum package that has something like this in
> its description, summary and/or README.fedora:
>
> {{{
> Note: The kyum developers stopped working on kyum. EPEL will keep it
> in its repos for the forseeable future and try its best to fix
> security bugs as EPEL has users that have it installed and rely on
> it. But we might drop kyum in case a big and hard to fix security
> problem show up sooner or later. Future version of EPEL are unlikely
> to ship kyum.
> 
> The best thus would be if you look out for alternatives to kyum and 
> uninstall kyum when you found one.
> }}}

Perhaps. This is another case where it would be nice to have a
'epel-announce' type mailing list for end users to subscribe to. 
Announcements there about things like this would be usefull I think. 

Also, it would be good to add to a changelog entry about this, as many
admins check changelog entries to see what changed and what impact it
has. 

anyhow, I agree with Thorsten... we should leave the package around for
current branches, and just not build it for new ones. 

> CU
> knurd

kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/attachments/20080630/23be79eb/attachment.sig>