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

Re: Meeting summary/notes from today's EPEL meeting 2010-02-12



On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 01:19:20PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 04:49:08PM -0600, BJ Dierkes wrote:
> 
> 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"

I could never get in touch with the openmotif maintainer to do something
consistent between fedora/RHEL/EPEL for motif based software (like
consistent virtual provides). After some attemps I gave up, but it was 
when I was more active in Fedora/EPEL so some time ago, maybe things 
have changed since then.

> 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

Apart from Reports are there specific parts that are out of date? I
tried to review the whole EPEL wiki in the end of 2008, I don't think
that there were much changes afterwards, except from switching to bodhi
and koji, and I just checked that this has been rightly taken into 
account.

In fact the 'moving' parts of the EPEL wiki have always been late
(like report meetings, schedule and things like that) but the remaining
should be ok now. The FAQ is marked to be needing love, but, honestly 
I can't see serious issues.

> 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.

It is not clear that the problem here is with the documented guidelines.
Have these guidelines changed? Or are the CVS admins having claims they
shouldn't have? I'd lean to the second, though I may have missed a guideline
change.

--
Pat


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