On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 04:49:08PM -0600, BJ Dierkes wrote: > Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-02-12/fedora-meeting.2010-02-12-20.59.log.html From the log: 21:19:15 <stickster> so that engineers inside Red Hat understand they need to be working with EPEL as an upstream 21:19:27 <derks> that's great 21:19:52 <stickster> The unanimous response I got from the folks I talked to was, "Yup, we're doing that now, and will keep doing so" This seems not to have worked for "python-setuptools", because when it was added to RHEL, an older version that the on in EPEL was used. Also the RHEL package does not provide "python-setuptools-devel". A related ignored bug report is: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460631 For this package, it EPEL land it does not look better, as the CVS does not contain a dead.package: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/python-setuptools/EL-5/ Also there seems to be no trace about the whole situation. Also it seems that more or less any documentation regarding EPEL is not maintained, e.g. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL contains a log of stale content: Latest report on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Reports is from 2008, week 17 Also the "Getting a Fedora package in EPEL"[0] procedure is not in sync with what CVS admins require, as they might require a confirmation that a maintainer has been asked: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=243716#c15 But this is not what the procedure describes. Regards Till [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Getting_a_Fedora_package_in_EPEL
Attachment:
pgpSSN9FWvQIN.pgp
Description: PGP signature