Re: [EPEL] EPEL -- the way forward

[Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora leemhuis info>]

Michael Stahnke schrieb:
> On 2/23/07, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora leemhuis info> wrote:
>> Stephen John Smoogen schrieb:
>> My 2 cent:
>> Agreed for Camp1 -- it should be left to people who are going to be paid
>> for it.
>> For the other stuff: I'm targeting something like a mix in the middle
>> between Camp2 and Camp3 (with some bits of Camp1 maybe) for EPEL (maybe
>> a bit more closer to Camp2 than Camp3). Always the latest stuff IMHO is
>> what we have Fedora for; I also think that's its unrealistic to even try
>> to always ship the latest apps: Just try now to build a certain apps
>> from Extras for RHEL4 -- you will run into trouble now and then, as
>> RHEL4 ships with gtk2-2.4, but there are quite a few apps these days
>> that require gtk2-2.6.
> Has the demand for one particular type of application been higher than
> another?  For example, most shops I see with RHEL/CentOS are in
> runlevel 3, so QT/GTK applications are minimal.  Is anyone seeing
> things that are different? 

Well, I assume that besides those that run RHEL/CentOS on Servers in
runlevel 3 there are a lot of people out there that run it on their
workstation; Fedora afaics moves to fast for a lot of people that prefer
to have a "stable" desktop -- they afaics prefer to only upgrade their
machine all 18-24 months (or even more seldom) to a new release.

>  Also, will things like Tremulous be
> allwoed in EPEL?

/me looks up what tremulous -- ohh, a "First Person Shooter game based
on the Quake 3 engine", that why I don't know about it.

Well, I didn't build the games I maintain for EPEL yet, but I suppose
some people expect them to find in EPEL. I think we should ship them, if
the maintainer wants, but games IMHO have not a high priority.

CU
thl