On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > Does this go to branching for minor RHEL releases? If so, I think the > topic was raised before and considered to be way too much work for the > small group of people that make up EPEL's core-maintenance team. Yes, I've gotten this and can understand that as well. But my question, I handed out to Mike before as well, didn't get still not answered until now: Why do we _explicitly_ want to _break_ in EPEL what is working and good enough since RHEL 5.0? Please show me the reason why we actually really need to remove it. Maybe we can't support each z-series of RHEL, but do we really have because of that to explicitly break something then which would go smoothly by its own? It thought until now, we're contributors and try to enhance RHEL with EPEL if and wherever it is possible, but somehow I'm (nearly?) alone with this opinion on the list... EPEL is Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux, right? There are the words and phrases "Extra Packages" and "Enterprise". Enterprise implicits IMHO, that nothing breaks, everything goes smoothly; "Extra Packages" makes expection to users of additional packages. Our current plan with removing packages in EPEL that got obsoleted due imports into RHEL (instead of just freezing the obsoleted EPEL packagesthem) has for me just less relationship with Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux. Greetings, Robert
Attachment:
pgpaZrsHKuhcG.pgp
Description: PGP signature