'policy' for multiple versions of same software in EPEL

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:25:10 -0500
Greg Swift <gregswift at gmail.com> wrote:

> If an additional repo is decided to be the way to go, what would it
> take to develop a mostly 'complete' list along with a list of existing
> howtos or subject matter experts that can be referenced by the poor
> soul(s) who volunteer to do the work?

Hard to say until we had such a list. ;) 

> > And I'm sure there's other issues... it would not be at all easy,
> > and I would prefer to avoid it.
> 
> understandably.  although at this point I'm wondering a few things:
> 
> 1: since multiple bits have brought this up and no one has come up
> with a better solution, is this the way we need to go?

I'm still not sure. ;) 

> 2: would a single EPEL-supplemental/rolling/fubar meet the needs of
> both of these paths?

I don't know. I'd love to hear from those that have cases not handled
by current EPEL. 

> 3: is it possible to do the numbered packages in the same git
> repositories without creating a whole separate package path? is it
> reasonable?

I don't know. I guess it would need to be 'epel6-rolling' and
'epel5-rolling' as seperate branches in git. 

kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/attachments/20121024/0f752c82/attachment.sig>