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

Re: "newer packages"



> On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 12:28:35PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
>> Should we have a stronger effort to replace older RHEL packages if we
>> put them in their own namespace and don't conflict?
>> 
>> This is sort of a nuanced problem since RHEL5 doesn't feel nearly as
>> old as RHEL4 did at this point in it's release cycle.  But still,
>> people do want newer versions of these packages.
> 
> I'd be in favor of something like this... would the separate namespace
> by enough separation, or should there be an actual additional repo for
> packages like this?
> 
> Prior would obviously be simpler.
> 
> Something like this for mutt (mutt15 perhaps) would be great.

I support this idea; there are a handful of packages that are important
to me which have had updates (some with considerable bug fixes) but the
enterprise-development policy of not following upstream updates leaves
me with the choice of running without the updates or rolling my own,
both of which are less than ideal.

I think a separate repo would make it easier to use selectively, which
is how I would want to use it. I can see a handful of other reasons that
keeping the names and spec files as close to the original would be
beneficial.

All of the talk so far has revolved around backports for RHEL itself,
but I would also suggest that there might be EPEL packages that are not
being updated for compatibility reasons, I presume, that also might be
good candidates. Two that come immediately to mind are nagios and cfengine.

Wil



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


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